politics

It's always best to address stuff like this with a very wide grin and say "Ah, it's good to know that for all your self-righteousness and false piety, you will burn in hell, and Jesus will weep knowing his sacrifice meant nothing to you. Ta!"

You don't even need to believe it, it just really gets under people's skin. Fuck 'em.

My brain is still as broken as my relationship with my father when he looked me straight in the eyes and told me that yes, Jesus would be ok putting kids in cages.

They got...angry? What, typical "don't sass me" or what? What did they saaaay?

I know it's not my place to ask but just soooo curious ;-;

I often feel this way and my inner-angry-atheist called the shots for years, but so many of us have done this, and we've formed a bubble thinking angry atheism is spreading and it's not. In reality we've just ceded the most important debates, the ones that morality can be baked into - LGBT rights, immigrant rights, death penalty, etc - leaving the left without the support we need to win in these arenas.

If you really want progressive ideals to win, drop the attitude about religion, run the other way - embrace religious progressives, support progressive faith communities, and watch as we start winning elections again.

Jesus is anti-authoritarian first and foremost

I mean, he did exhort his followers to sell their shirts and buy swords!

the Eucharist was an act of mockery towards Mystery Cult rituals

More likely the version we ended up with was intentionally obfuscated from what it originally was.

Notice how in John, which lacks any Eucharist ritual, that at the last supper bread is being dipped much as there's ambiguous dipping in Mark? But it's characterized as a bad thing because it's given to Judas? And then Matthew goes even further changing it to a 'hand' being dipped?

Does it make sense for the body of an anointed one to not be anointed before being eaten?

Look at how in Ignatius's letter to the Philadelphians he tells them to "avoid evil herbs" not planted by god and "have only one Eucharist." Herbs? Hmmm. (A number of those in that anointing oil.)

There's a parallel statement in Matthew 15 about "every plant" not planted by god being rooted up.

But in gThomas 40 it's a grapevine that's not planted and is to be rooted up. Much as in saying 28 it suggests people should be shaking off their wine.

Now, again kind of curious that the Eucharist ritual of wine would have excluded John the Baptist who didn't drink wine and James the brother of Jesus who was also traditionally considered to have not drunk wine, or honestly any Nazarite who had taken a vow not to drink wine.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the idea Jesus was born from a virgin. This results from Matthew's use of the Greek version of Isaiah 7:14 instead of the Hebrew where it's simply "young woman." But almost no one considers that line in its original context with the line immediately after:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

You know, like the curds and honey ritual referenced by the Naassenes who were following gThomas. (Early on there was also a ritual like this for someone's first Eucharist or after a baptism even in canonical traditions but it eventually died out.)

Oh and strange that Pope Julius I in 340 CE was banning a Eucharist with milk instead of wine…

Now, the much more interesting question is why there were efforts to change this, but that's a long comment for another time.

The Roman empire was putting to death many prophets and god incarnates. The innovation of the Jesus story was that he didn't say dead, but he also conveniently didn't stick around.

Studies have consistently shown that atheists/agnostics are also as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable about world religions and even Christianity than Christians themselves, especially in the USA.

This pissess me off so much. I was raised in christian family. And I mean motherfucking christian. I was taught from young age to show compassion, to help other, to help others up even if I don't personally like them. This is what it means to me to be christian. Compassion, love, and charity. Help others without asking for anything back.

Which is also core of fucking theoretical communism, so no wonder that also fell.

But it pissess me off when I meet people who are soooooo fucking hardcore believers, each sunday in church, always praising god and then they start the goddamn gossip of the day. Because Annie has a man of a slightly darker carnation, it's obvious Annie is abused, poor Annie but in the end Annie knew what she was doing, oh that poor hoe hope she finds god in her life. FFS these gossipin pseudo-christians should find god in their life -.-'

There's epigram in polish, fun little thing by Jan Kochanowski. Translation would be

"If you're not sinning, as you're telling me, why are you, dear, confessing so often?".

MAGA Christians would be so pissed to learn about the real Jesus if they could read

Red-Letter Christians

Red-Letter Christians is a non-denominational movement within Evangelical Christianity. "Red-Letter" refers to New Testament verses and parts of verses printed in red ink, to indicate the words attributed to Jesus without the use of quotation marks.

The organization was founded by Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne in 2007 with the aim of bringing together evangelicals who believe in the importance of insisting on issues of social justice mentioned by Jesus (in red in some translations of the Bible). They believe Christians should be paying attention to Jesus's words and example by promoting biblical values such as social justice issues. These issues include the fight against poverty, the defense of peace, building strong families, respecting human rights and welcoming foreigners.

The rest of the passage hit harder. First, the setup

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then your section about "the right". Then the rest

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

There was a news article a while ago about maga hats saying their church was repeating "liberal talking points", when the pastor was simply quoting Jesus.

https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706

Most of the maga hats don't care. They found their tribe and that's all that matters to them now.

Facts and quotes don't change people's minds. In-group belonging does. So long as they see you as an enemy, they won't listen to anything you say. We're all vulnerable to that, but maga hats seem especially vulnerable.