That's not a problem unique to Christianity. For example: "The Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS justices say it says." or perhaps you prefer "The news says whatever Rupert Murdoch says it says" or even "Lemmy says whatever the admins say it says."
Point is, any institution suffers the risk that its leaders could dictate its message or pervert its original intent for their own benefit. But Christianity--like the news, the law, and federated communities--is not a monolith. The Lakewood Church might adopt doctrines that are specially tailored to enriching Joel Osteen and his entourage, but that instance of corruption isn't an indicator that Christianity--which existed for 1900 years before it--is inherently corrupt or somehow uniquely predisposed to manipulation by conmen.
By all reputable historic accounts, early Christian communities were socialistic, and its popularity among poor and marginalized Jews, Hellenistic Jews, and pagans is largely responsible for its spread during the first two centuries of its existence. The Christian texts we have today still resonate with the poor because their authors wrote them for the poor of their day, and it turns out poverty isn't terribly different in the 21st Century from the 1st.
The Catholic Church used Christianity to make boatloads of cash. So did the Greek Orthodox Church, the Reformed Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and most other large institutions. So did other institutional religions (and non-religions). That's not a problem with Christianity. It's a problem with people. The overwhelming majority of church pastors I've known personally had to maintain a separate full-time job, because running churches is not a money-making enterprise unless you're a corporation, an especially gifted and morally bankrupt businessman, or you inherited it.
All of that is to say that the problem with Christian institutions is the same problem with all institutions: greed. For the love of money is the root of all evil.
It's not about religion. It's about class. No war but the class war.
This last round was the line for me. Canceled the whole Hulu/D+ mess and haven't looked back. My Jolly Roger is a little tattered these days, but I still know how to fly it.
That's an extremely valuable shout-out, thanks. I haven't shopped for a TV in more than a decade now, but after following this rabbit hole for a little bit, you've essentially converted me to this way of thinking. It reminds me of Windows LTSC--just get the version that doesn't have the bullshit, even if you have to jump through some extra hoops or pay more.
Put'em up. Got statistics? Show statistics. I don't care one whit about this argument (I homeschool my kid because I don't want him to get shot), but if you say your allegation is supported by evidence, provide the evidence. Which ones?: Yes. Let's see'em.
Bernie too! I volunteered for Bernie in 16, I think he would have been an outstanding president, and I think he's possibly the best politician working in the federal government right now.
But a Sanders administration would have the exact same policy on Israel, because this is realpolitik, and that means we have to be a little more cynical. Israel is absolutely engaged in genocide, and it is reprehensible, but the US also cannot afford not to have an ally in the Levant, full stop. Neither can Eastern Europe or South Asia.
Won't happen with any other president either. Biden is doing exactly what Trump would do, or Obama, or Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or anyone else. Because the alternative is Putin's Israel, at best. The other scenario is just kicking off WWIII in the Levant.
This is actually a really fascinating text, historically and theologically. Whether you're religious or not, the society that produced this text--like our society--had an interest in preserving families. It did not want bastards who would be dependent on community resources. So it enlisted the priests to superstition away jealous husbands. Are you just so sure she's a cheating whore? Well have her drink this magic poison, and if she is she'll never have kids! Spooky. If she's not, then nothing happens. And if she's pregnant, you're now game theorying with your worldview: are you about to risk killing your own baby in an effort to kill a bastard? Better tread lightly, sirs!
I suspect (admittedly with no evidence) that this resulted in the intentionally high burden of proof for adultery being honored more consistently, and on a large scale, it probably meant more insecure husbands reared families, more women were not subject to the draconian penalties arising out of their pseudo-property status, and priests could push families to remain stable.
His support of Israel is consistent with American foreign policy writ large since 1947. That people want to place the ongoing genocide at his feet betrays the success of GOP and foreign propaganda, to wit: The absence of American support for Israel would not stop the genocide, and the position of the Biden administration in Israel and Gaza is the same as any other presidency, historical, hypothetical, or imaginary. That is, any US president would have the exact same policy, including Donald Trump, any other president in the last seventy-five years, and anyone who ever had a realistic chance at the Oval.
That's because a US-Israel alliance, even in the presence of reprehensible acts by Netanyahu's government and the IDF, is still better for the US, and arguably global stability, than any alternative. The best we can hope for, from any president, are calls for restraint and ceasefire, both of which Biden have made. Abandoning Israel as a US ally would be a disaster for the entire region, and more importantly it would make no difference whatsoever to the Palestinian people.
I don't think the policy is morally good. But it's rational. Criticizing Joe Biden for the genocide is like criticizing a commuter for their vehicle's emissions. Yeah, things would be better if they were different, but Israel-Palestine isn't a problem Joe Biden can solve in the real world.
Indeed. As a Yank who always has to pay for healthcare anyway, it's easy to see the parallels in labor/employment, civil rights, and financial security: We're facing a global regressive movement from the political right, and those people have no scruples. They absolutely want to claw back every single gain the general public has made in rights and benefits over the last 75 years, and making benefits unpopular is the first step to privatizing them.
Never forget the NHS, warts and all, is a thing that we Americans would die to have, and for want of it many of us too often literally do.
I'm an out of touch socialist myself, and I'll be voting for Joe Biden with my head held high. Point is there's a lot of sacrifice-the-good-for-the-perfect "left-wing" protesting on here that will suppress voter turnout by attempting to dampen enthusiasm for President Biden. Taking it at face value, it's coming from people who are unhappy he's not a European socialist; being a little more cynical, I find it hard to believe anyone who suggests we drop the incumbent mid-primary season doesn't have an ulterior motive.
With whom? Harris and Newsom both poll losing to Trump. Harris is less popular than Biden, and Newsom isn't an incumbent. Biden is the candidate in 24 for the same reason he was in 20. He's the best candidate to beat Trump.
The people "ringing the alarm" are out of touch socialists and anarchists, and more frequently, Republicans, foreign operatives, and grievancers who aren't voting anyway.
I would have loved to see a Sanders presidency in my lifetime. Well, it didn't happen. Fortunately, Joe Biden has proven a remarkably effective president under phenomenally difficult circumstances, and his bad numbers are less a product of his administration and more the result of record voter unhappiness and the stranglehold of Trump on US politics. That's not a problem that's solved by pushing a new candidate on stage, because any other Democrat is going to have the same baggage or worse, assuming they're not outright unelectable.
Your solution to rampant economic inequality is ... campaign and vote downballot.
I mean, sure, that's a great idea, but your argument essentially boils down to combating apathy (which isn't a new or unique problem), and I guess attacking a hypothetical Sanders administration that never happened because--I dunno, you just wanted to get a jab in at voters who were actually motivated about a candidate for once in a lifetime? Well, good news for you; all the Sanders supporters are back to voting defensively until their kids grow up, if they vote at all. Does that feel like a win to you?
People aren't "taking the easy way out" by not voting the entire ballot. In fact, split-ticket voting is down historically, at least as of 2020, across both parties. Blaming people for not devoting their lives to political activism is akin to blaming minimum wage workers for not walking out: Yeah, maybe things would be better if they did, but people have to survive. Choosing to use what little spare time one has with family instead of participating in local politics isn't a moral failure, and it's not the easy way out. It's just rational. People have limited time and limited means, and there are more important things than who gets to be the constable next year.
Xhieron @ xhieron @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 295Joined 2 yr. ago
That's not a problem unique to Christianity. For example: "The Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS justices say it says." or perhaps you prefer "The news says whatever Rupert Murdoch says it says" or even "Lemmy says whatever the admins say it says."
Point is, any institution suffers the risk that its leaders could dictate its message or pervert its original intent for their own benefit. But Christianity--like the news, the law, and federated communities--is not a monolith. The Lakewood Church might adopt doctrines that are specially tailored to enriching Joel Osteen and his entourage, but that instance of corruption isn't an indicator that Christianity--which existed for 1900 years before it--is inherently corrupt or somehow uniquely predisposed to manipulation by conmen.
By all reputable historic accounts, early Christian communities were socialistic, and its popularity among poor and marginalized Jews, Hellenistic Jews, and pagans is largely responsible for its spread during the first two centuries of its existence. The Christian texts we have today still resonate with the poor because their authors wrote them for the poor of their day, and it turns out poverty isn't terribly different in the 21st Century from the 1st.
The Catholic Church used Christianity to make boatloads of cash. So did the Greek Orthodox Church, the Reformed Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and most other large institutions. So did other institutional religions (and non-religions). That's not a problem with Christianity. It's a problem with people. The overwhelming majority of church pastors I've known personally had to maintain a separate full-time job, because running churches is not a money-making enterprise unless you're a corporation, an especially gifted and morally bankrupt businessman, or you inherited it.
All of that is to say that the problem with Christian institutions is the same problem with all institutions: greed. For the love of money is the root of all evil.
It's not about religion. It's about class. No war but the class war.