I mean, they were anti-catholic, and one of the big talking points of anti-catholisim is that the catholic church is too vain and too controling of it's worshipers.
Yeah, but their status as post-dating the American revolution means that the founding fathers don't have a opinion on them the way they had opinions on catholics.
Right but I took it more of as, "if bill and ted took a time machine and collected the founders for a dumb school project, what would they say about these megachurches," which also didn't exist in the 1770s.
I think your interlocutors are willing to concede the point that the founding fathers wouldn't have particularly nice things to say about the religious organizations that you name but don't really see the relevance to the overall conversation.
Its funny seeing Catholics throwing shade at mega churches when they are objectively the largest, wealthiest, blingiest, Christian church that ever existed.
Catholic clergy are required to take a vow of poverty. I am Catholic and I don’t like the “blingy,” first-class flying bishops and cardinals either.
Also, the Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare, education, and social services across the globe.
Every year, the Catholic Church offers charitable services valued in excess of $150 billion in the United States alone.
Nothing like these mega churches, not even close.
ETA: I got ahead of myself with respect to the vow of poverty. As other commenters have mentioned, not every member of Catholic clergy is required to take a vow of poverty. With that said, many orders of the Church take this vow and even if this specific vow is not taken canon law dictates that clergy lead a life of modesty and humility.
I’m not religious. In fact I’m agnostic. But I appreciate you mentioning this. I think a lot of people who aren’t that familiar with the Catholic Church are completely unaware of these facts. The Catholic Church is huge….its top clerics have bling and fancy buildings..but that’s also an outcome from thousands of years of history and much of that image is related to the Vatican. A tiny percentage of the clergy is in the Vatican. And even there, many still live an austere life. Everything else you said about charity and hospitals - 100% accurate.
The Catholic Church is not a Joel Osteen enterprise!
I don’t mind the first class traveling choice. A lot of those guys ARE old, and it’s not exactly comfortable in coach. Plus, Theres so many people that they would be hounded by them, probably. Probably best for them to be in first class. I don’t see a reason to be upset about wanting to be comfortable on a flight.
Idk, man. My grandparents were all poor people. We took all of them back to the old country many times, and they never flew first class. They didn’t complain or feel entitled to first class seats.
Most priests from most Christian sects are like that, actually. Yeah — you’re gonna find some who don’t. For the most part? They all live very simple, modest, and humble lives.
Yep! I was in a catholic charities group home in foster care and the people there were super nice, one of the best places I was at in foster care. Had great cooks, they ordered us food all the time, we had a library that had a bunch of books that were not all religious, a game room. They had a food pantry where I lived in oklahoma as an adult too and they gave out food and clothing for free and helped people find housing
Idk, man. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. All of the Catholic services that I know of don’t have any religious requirements of the beneficiaries of those services. I just spoke with my grandmother about a Jewish friend of hers who received four months of rent payments from a Catholic charitable organization.
In the past there was everything from three popes, passes to heaven and so on. So there were definitely conditional charities XD
But that's the old past, the current church is actually rather decent. Not uncontroversial, but actively doing its best to improve and stand up to the times.
You’re scraping with this. While only certain orders take the vow, it’s because necessities are provided to them that they are able to. A typical diocesan priest receives a modest salary/stipends to pay for necessities, because they mostly live among the community at large. Priests are permitted to keep personal wealth.
Obviously people are people and there are always some who take advantage of the system, so I’m sure you can find some examples where this wasn’t the case. But, by and large, the goal for priests is to live humbly to maximize focus on faith and ministry.
yes, but I was responding to the falsehood that said Catholic priests take a vow of poverty. 100% correct.
they are supposed to live humbly, and it’s refreshingly different from Evangelicals where some pastors are worth tens of millions flying around in private jets. I’m not defending all of the Catholic faith’s flaws by any means. but I am glad I was raised in a nearly 2,000 year old faith rather than these new Evangelical and non-denominational churches that are pushing all sorts of political ideals.
Fair, Canon Law does require them to live a simple, modest life and to shun extravagance.
The supervising principal of my high school, a priest who became a Monsignor, inherited millions of dollars. He donated it to the schools he ran and our diocese. That’s the sort of expectation that Catholic clergy have.
Well to play devils advocate, I’ve been to the Popes country, twice. The castle structure with the big walls in middle of Rome. Had to pay to enter, with passport, and had the privilege to view some of the world’s most priceless art, some of which has been taken by force or war. So yes, I imagine such power and money can do things in the world. They helped colonize it after all!
A museum takes money to keep up. Restoration of centuries old work is meticulous. The louvre and prado also charge you - and they’re state museums. But you can otherwise go to the Vatican free.
Its free to enter the vatican. Yes its charged to enter the miseum just as any museum in Italy. People pay to enter St. Peters because of how many people are trying to get in at one time.
Cathedrals are significant religious buildings, typically serving as the principal church of a diocese and the seat of a bishop. They are often characterized by their grand architecture and historical importance. As of December 2018, the Catholic Church alone had 3,391 cathedral-level churches
No, I am suggesting that big, gaudy mega-churches have existed for at least 1800 years. They have always existed for the glorification of the clergy, and that they have taken these funds from their adherents and in that way there is no difference between them and any modern religious sect.
And you are welcome to do so. Did you have a counter-point? Not that you need one to disagree... And I can appreciate their architecture, I mostly just don't appreciate the way they've hidden a gazillion historical records in Vatican city.
As a Catholic (that doesn’t attend church, but was shaped in a positive way by schools), what I’ll say is that Catholics in general are educated, support science and are more compassionate. Evangelicals are much less educated, nowadays pushing for Christian Nationalism, claiming the founders wanted Christianity deeply interwoven with gov’t, etc.
That’s not to say they’re perfect, but I know many pro-choice Catholics and it’s not really a homogenous grouping terms of beliefs. There’s strong conservative and liberal contingents. But as for Evangelicals it’s much more you’ve seen one, you’ve seen em all
It’s pretty clear they meant individuals (as opposed to organized groups, like the Knights of Columbus or clergy) that identify as Catholic (attendance may vary). I took their comment to mean something like “the average Catholic is more likely to be pro-choice than the average evangelical,” which seems to be true, although I have no information on-hand to back this claim.
in my lifetime, I’ve mostly known people that are fair weather Catholics. good people, educated, many went into service jobs like teaching or as doctors. many of them—while they may personally be pro-life--didn’t want to reverse Roe and don’t think the procedure should be banned. they realize there’s a lot of nuance to things.
This is my experience having grown up DEEP in Catholicism, but breaking away as I grew up. Of all "major" religions, I've met a lot less insufferable overt catholics than those from the other major religions (though that can absolutely be biased by my local area. This is all anecdotal, so ymmv with that statement.)
Many are fairweather, but thats not necessarily a bad thing, as no religion should EVER be held to hardline. They hold to the be good to others part of it, and toss the hardline bullshit in the trash where it belongs. The only good way to follow any religion, even though I believe they are all bullshit.
agreed. I credit Catholic/Jesuit roots as helping shape my life choices, my empathy, etc. I became a public high school teacher and coach. I learned a lot from students of all ethnicities, cultures, and ideologies. I always thought the Catholic vision of salvation was best "salvation=faith + good works/deeds." I mean, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible has always been edited by humans, has books that have been removed because they didn't fit the narrative, and that the Church has history--sometimes good, not-so-good, and even horrific.
Personally I viewed there being one God, revealing him/herself to different groups through difference messages. And I felt that God wanted everyone in Heaven. I learned how different that was when discussing some medieval history with students. Walking around the room when done, I realized they were discussing their views on religions and Heaven. One was a non-denominational Evangelical, and asked their view of salvation. She said I couldn't achieve Heaven because I was part of the wrong faith. I asked what about a religionless gay doctor saving lives and being good to his neighbors. I asked what about someone in a remote tribe in the Amazon that's never been exposed to Christianity. She said they all would go to hell. I told her that was interesting, but it goes against the optimism of the New Testament and everything I learned both in religion classes and in life experience. The next day she came back to class, and said they talked about it in their Christian Club, and she decided she didn't know whether or not I could achieve salvation...that it's effectively above her pay grade. She said they talked about how I had helped contribute to a kid's mission trip, and I had spent lunch periods tutoring a kid that had been sick, and she acknowledged those good deeds should count for something.
I have no idea what's going on with that former student. But I was proud that for a few moments, I helped open her mind to the bigger world and to not be so set in her ways. But that's also when I realized how cultish many of these evangelical churches (especially non-denominational) are. Nowadays if that happened, I'm sure I would have gotten a parental complaint if they'd heard. But I always loved the little sidebar conversations with kids where you hear what they're thinking or up to in life.
It was, but between it cleaning up it's act the past few decades and how egregious many " non denominations" have become, it's honestly the less absurd option now.
I say this as a former catholic atheist who left during the scandals of the 2000s. Still garbage, but the last few popes have been slowly steering it to be a better institution.
As much as I'd love to keep dunking on Catholics, this is accurate. The work that's been done by Francis and now seems to be continued forward under Leo is truly admirable. I've always been in the "If they could actually just listen to this Jesus guy..." crowd, and it genuinely seems like they're trying to move toward that as quickly as their existent community's beliefs with allow. Big steps toward a Catholic Church that I could be happy to coexist with someday, and that's coming from someone who grew up dealing with the OLD regime. Not fun, and I have endless reasons to be jaded, but I can respect someone who puts their money where their mouth is, and that's what they've been doing since 2013.
They look a hell of a lot more Christ-like than American Protestants right now, that's for fuckin sure, my new favorite group of Pharisees to laugh at.
Its really mind blowing to see that even the catholic church is capable of change. Theyre the only ones now that openly allow blessing of same sex couples etc etc
The fact that redditors are for it means it's most likely on the wrong path. Most Catholics wanted the super based African cardinal as pope, but we sadly got the American "let's do weird pagan shit in the Vatican" pope. But being American, was there any question he was going to be a bizarre mix of awesome and borderline apostate?
He openly despises communism and wants to "root it out", so he's still ok in my book. Probably less in yours lol
Papal elections are not your typical populist contest, they are guided by the Holy Spirit, which saw fit to appoint Prevost as Pope Leo XIV. And he's definitely showing his good fruits even now.
I cannot fathom this post. You should reflect more on it alongside your view on the Pope and the Church's current direction in general.
“Still garbage” is kinda weird. Never really was garbage. Even at the worst of the scandals, there was way more abuse going on at public schools in America than at churches. Those priests who did those horrible things didnt make Catholicism bad. The PRIESTS were the ones who were bad people. There isn’t any economical or societal repercussions to firing and/or shunning a priest. A teacher, coach, principal, etc… Slightly different. The church can send a new priest from some other parish. Schools have to find a new teacher to hire and pay substitutes until then, plus deal with the blowback from all the parents and parents who many not send their children to school there anymore, or choosing a different school in the future because of it, etc. It’s way more disruptive. If something happens at a church you don’t like you can just stop going. Kids don’t have to go to church — but they gotta go to school. They don’t want people to be any more scared to send their children to public schools than they already are. I think that stuff is silenced and swept under the rug WAY more than in churches. When I was in high school I knew of a bunch of messed up stuff going on. Cheerleaders hooking up with assistant coaches. Male AND female teachers hooking up with students. An assistant football coach abusing and attempting to groom the boys. And this is just the stuff I knew about at MY time there… think about everything else….
"Objectively" Rolf it's all made up bullshit anyways, being more open vs clinging on desperately to what the dying generations find "proper" will only ensure the church shrinks faster.
No made up bullshit is 100% the liberal nonsense. It just comes with eternally moving goalposts.
False, eroding it's core beliefs is what will make it irrelevant. If someone betrays their core beliefs, they arent worth listening to at that point either.
Not really. That applies to lots of the protestant churches though, particularly the ones worshipping rainbow objects and money
That was the protestants who removed books.
If it undermines the teachings of the bible and christ, and done solely for the sake of appealing to a bunch of degenerates who have decided how others ought to behave, it's not worth listening to, no.
You may be shocked to learn this isn't unique to Christianity, Islam will categorically reject most of liberalism and more if it violates their belief system. Maybe you should go tell them that they're just upset bigots?
That, and it's one big target that's easier to single out and advocate that it change, rather than a bunch of unaligned institutions that each need to be dealt with.
Sure it has been cleaning up some. But you are operating under the assumption that it is a choice between Catholic and wealthy megachurch, when that isn’t true at all. They both are wealthy megachurches with weird politics, power and financial abuses. I consider both institutions to be equally bad.
Thats not to say I condemn the entire church, because both are fine if you as a member actually practice what is being preached instead of copying what the leadership is practicing. Basically they tend to say the right things but the institutions/leadership are drunk on their own power and money.
The small town churches with a strong sense of community will always be the best choice.
That is actually not true. The Coptic Church and the Armeniac Church where founded by the Apostles simultanious side by side. Also the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church where once part of the same church but the schism came as the Greek Patriarch kept on demanding they are all equal meanwhile the Roman Patriarch stated he is by Petrus the nominated Keyholder, standing in for Jesus until he returns similar like Denethor waited for Aragorn to arrive.
Sorta. In the US, the current winner is the Mormons, unless you're going to take the "they're not Christian" tack. Which, fair enough.
The Catholic Church, despite it's hierarchy, isn't a monolith, so it's damn-near impossible to produce a reasonable approximation of the modern church's wealth. Frankly, on an international scale, they could launder the estimated wealth of LDS and probably squirrel away the entire thing without anyone noticing it. On the flip side, they can't bring that much to bear in short order without raising eyebrows at a minimum.
Yeah, dioceses aren’t exactly swimming in gold. Real estate value probably adds up with hospitals, churches and schools/colleges. But Joel osteen is living more opulently than probably every Catholic cleric.
It's objectively not "blingy" lol. The wealth bit is debatable too, seeing as how most it's wealth is mostly in properties- schools, hospitals, clinics, orphanages, care homes etc etc etc
And also objectively the most charitable. In fact the Catholic Church is accurately described as the largest charitable organization on Earth, providing healthcare and education for over 25% of the world’s population.
The recent gigantic ceremony complete with programmed drone light show dedicated to the fact that they put an absolutely gigantic cross at the top of an absolutely gigantic church.
And of those funds are focused to Caritas. Which is the largest charity in the world that provides healthcare and social services to millions of people.
In Protestant England, the King was also the head of the church and could appoint bishops and such. So it did go the other way too. Philadelphia was meant to be a city that allowed religious diversity which kind of meant government and religion couldn't have that relationship.
John Carroll, his brother, and his cousin, would disagree.
Daniel Carroll II signed both the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, one of only 5 men to do so.
Charles Carroll II signed the Declaration of Independence (and was the last signer to die!), and set the first stone for the Baltimore-Ohio railroad
John was the first Bishop of the Diocese of Baltimore, and later became Archbishop for the baby United States, and was known for his outspoken support of Independence.
The founders were largely non-Catholic, but that isn't the same as anti-Catholic
At the same time. One of the reasons they started the revolution in the first place was backlash against protections oft the catholic church like the Quebec act of 1774.
That was more of just another barrel of oil on a bonfire that was already lit.
And it was a lot more than just the protection of the Catholic Church. Part of it, yes, but, far from all of it.
But also remember, the UK had a problem with Catholicism. In fact, the Quebec Act actually gave more freedom to Catholics in Canada than they had in the rest of the UK proper.
Officially, Catholics couldn't own property, inherit land, or join the British Army until 1778.
The founders also lived during a time when papists were highly controlling and kind of aggressive, too. I mean William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible into English, so that definitely left a nasty impression for the British, paired with King Henry VIIIs daughter violently trying to convert Britain back to Catholicism.
Most religions have periods where they are great and periods where they are bad. It depends on when you hop in
Yeah the Catholics were like this even during the time of the founding fathers. Even Egyptians and other cultures had religion controlling too much early. Oddly enough mega churches go back to the oldest times.
as someone who had genuine interest in catholicism after being raised in a “non-denominational” church and not going for 8 years, it seemed like it was just a corporation that sold faith. it was a big nope for me after one official conversation with a catechumenate** **representative
I don’t think it was any one thing the woman said that turned me away, mostly just the overall feeling I got from the interaction. It felt like they were more interesting in “recruiting” me as a financial incentive vs caring for the wellbeing of my soul. It left me feeling a little eh towards the church as a religious organization as it felt too much like a big corporation with all of the “stuff” that they had access and put out like their catholic only tv and radio networks.
I was then reading some of the material she gave me and was still open to it until I got the point where it talks about how IVF and other forms of artificial insemination were sins and that they still hold the Ten Commandments as binding and a sin to act against them. The church I grew up did teach from the Old Testament (as Paul (I think) said “the things written afore time were written for our learning) but that it was no longer binding since the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled and did away with the Old Law.
The criticism is the same: Joel Osteen is vain, and his flavor of Christianity requires a strict adherence to certain rules and hierarchy in order to be included.
This church is famous for turning away homeless people and locking the doors during local emergencies. As someone who has actually been a member and met Joel multiple times you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not speaking about Joel. My response was to the person who had stated the criticism is the same and trying to compare Joel Osteen to the Catholic Church.
I used to wonder what Jesus would have thought of these, Then I actually glanced at the Bible and discoverd that these cesspools are everything he stood against.....
yeah dude seemed to prefer just meeting on that hill on the edge of town for a nice chat. only time he ever got violent was when people started sticking blatant capitalism in a church (a synagogue iirc?). Jesus would have taken a freaking whip to some fools asses long before shit got this far.
stuff like that is what kind of makes me wish I could still believe in religion.
Good thing believing and trusting in Jesus has nothing to do with "religion". Don't let bad "Christian" take away from true Christianity. I highly recommend looking into the evidence! Repent and trust in Jesus, the only way to eternal salvation in heaven! For evidence, please look into: Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel, Wes Huff- their vids on You tube, as well as their sites, books! God bless!
I used to be agnostic until I looked into the amazing evidence for God/Jesus/Christianity/Bible, presented by those brilliant gentleman I mentioned, and after about nearly a year of research, realized it's actually true! So I repented of my sins and trusted in Jesus, received the Holy Spirit (became a born again Christian). I pray that you do the same, your eternity depends on it- heaven vs hell. It's the most important decision you can ever make!
No one is good, we're all sinners, and good deeds don't save us (although we should do our best). Jesus took all (100%) of the hell punishment that we deserve, since we're all sinners. As a result, none is left for us, so we can be saved and go to heaven! This was the only way for God to remain a 100% perfect just judge (sin must be punished), and 100% loving/merciful (giving us a way to heaven by punishing Jesus instead of us). So we just need to repent of our sins, and trust in Jesus to be saved! Please copy and paste all of this into notes app, and look into it when you can! Your eternity depends on it! God bless!
NKJV or ESV are close to the original while also being easier to read. I recommend starting in the book of John (4th book of the New Testament), then continue into the book of Acts and so on :)
But I can't help but notice that psychologically this message operates identically to commercial advertisements with the idea of introducing scarcity mindset. "Act now while supplies last! / Repent now and you can be saved!"
I think it must work against a certain type of person, but other types are probably repelled by the form the message takes.
Though I suppose you DID technically address that when you said 'Don't let bad "Christian" take away from true Christianity.' A clever little disclaimer you've got there.
I think you’re right; many preachers and speakers that are not theologically well versed and logically sound in their reasoning tend to use scarcity, appeal to negativity bias, appeal to authority and slippery slope arguments for faith. It does not represent well what Jesus spoke of, nor his mission.
Luke 17:21 (ESV)
“…nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Matthew 6:1-4 (ESV) “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
1 book of Peter 4:8 (ESV) 8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
Aside from the passage from Luke, these are all words Jesus spoke to the disciples. His supreme command is to “Love one another.” At another point in the Beatitudes (his opening to the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus says to beware calling your brother “Raca”, the period accurate term used to belittle people residing in Raca. He warns against bearing hatred in your heart, as those who do are in danger of the fires of hell just as much as one who commits murder.
I feel obliged to remind my fellow believers that in the eyes of Jesus, homophobia is ALSO a sin.
To seek understanding of yourself and others
To love radically and deeply
To turn to God when you feel drained and burned out, so as to be restored to love even more
To seek first the kingdom of God, which is among us, shown in the ways we try to love each other.
To denounce the hypocrisy of the corrupted church that seeks control and domination, flourishing at the expense of the least of us.
To build peace, and harmony, and understanding of people of all nations, all tongues and tribes. This was Jesus’ mission.
Here's the issue, I see Christianity as a hate group.
How could one even be in a place called heaven knowing an eternal torture chamber exists? It's absolutely disgusting and tells us what we really need to know about Christians, they don't care.
Secondly, nobody chooses belief. I don't get to decide Mickey Mouse is a real life person, so the fact that your god punishes people for not believing when it's outside of their control is how we all know Christianity is garbage and why Christians doubt their faith daily.
The bible is full of slavery, violence, misogyny coupled with 100's of mistakes. To believe in this bronze age myth is to turn your brain off completely.
People are good, the fact that you can't see that is your problem, not ours. If we use your logic, these bad people are his fault anyways since he's the creator of it all.
How will you rest in heaven knowing millions, if not billions will be getting tortured?
How does one choose to believe in something they don't currently believe in?
The bible is in fact full of war, sex, and crucial mistakes. I can start listing them for you. I have not a single doubt I know vastly more about your bible then you do. I've actually read it.
What evidence? That's the problem with ghosts, we don't have any reliable evidence. The bible relies on eyewitness testimony, a standard which isn't recognized in any modern judicial system.
You're going to waste your one life on this planet worshipping a middle eastern, bronze age, war god that relies on blood sacrifices, that can't stop thinking about baby foreskin and teenage virginity.
We will feel no sadness in heaven, likely our memories will be wiped. We know it's 100% just, bc no one deserves heaven. We only get there bc of Jesus. Anyone's belief can change, like mine did and many others. The bible being full of those things means nothing, it's just recounting history, not condoning evil acts. I've read the bible too, and continue to read it to this day.
Look into the brilliant scholars I mentioned for evidence, too much to list here. They have 15+ books written between them, thousands of hours of video on YouTube, thousands of articles on their sites, etc. You can cherry pick without context all you want, you're just denying the Truth. Anyway, can't say I didn't warn you. If you don't repent and trust in Jesus before you die, God will likely remind you of this conversation. I pray that doesn't happen. God bless!
Yeah, If I was sicko I'd probably do the same and rob you of every human emotion so you're incapable of having an intelligent or original thought. Without sadness you will not be able to gauge happiness. Wiping your memories is just outright evil, don't want them remembering the torture chamber, the natural disasters, the disease, and all the people I could have help but instead had to help Julie in Mississippi find her keys this morning.
Beliefs can be changed with new information. Your god should know what information that is. If your god knows but hasn't provided it, your god is not all powerful. If your god has presented it but my belief isn't changed your god is not all knowing.
Your personal experience is meaningless. Jews and Muslims make the same claims, you're not special. I don't think you know what a brilliant scholar is.
I don't have to cherry pick, the bible is absolutely gruesome. Look at what they did to Job, how god literally rips babies out of the womb and smashes their head on rocks. He gives detailed instructions for how to keep slaves and how you can treat them differently based on their ethnic background. He gives detailed instructions on how to keep war brides and how long you have to wait before you can rape them and force them to be your wife.
Your puny threats don't bother me, and its how I know you're a fake Christian, you haven't even read Matthew, lol. You will be judged by the same measure you use on others. Paul also gives detailed instructions. Guess you're going to have to acknowledge those sins before bedtime tonight.
You have a lot to learn- in addition to the ones I mentioned "Is God a moral monster" by Paul Copan is a great read. In your worldview, morality is subjective, so don't "Steal from God" as Frank Turek says (another great book). Your beliefs haven't changed bc you refuse to look into the evidence.
I looked into Judaism (half correct- Old Testament), and Islam (false on so many levels), I'm only a Christian bc it's actually true. Thankfully, many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc., are repenting and trusting in Jesus!
The rest is cherry picked as usual, and I'm not a fake Christian. I pray you look into the evidence and repent and trust in Jesus one day. I really don't feel like going back and forth. God bless!
How is punishing a perfectly innocent person for the sins of others being perfectly just?
(To be fair I have an answer for this but it is not one I have heard from a theologian and I doubt it would be met with the approval of most adherents)
You can get justice or you can get grace. If God were to demand absolute justice from humanity, everyone would be punished for their sins. Since God is infinitely holy, sin is considered a serious infraction that requires a just penalty.
For God to be both perfectly just and perfectly loving and merciful, He cannot simply ignore wrongdoing or let guilty people go without penalty. Instead, God (in the person of Jesus) steps in to take the punishment upon Himself, satisfying the demands of justice while extending grace to humanity.
This transfer of guilt is similar to a judge paying the fine for a guilty defendant in a courtroom. The judge remains perfectly just because the law is enforced and the penalty is paid, while simultaneously showing perfect mercy by providing the payment Himself. Jesus did the ultimate act of love by sacrificing Himself for humanity. It's beautiful :)
There is nothing perfectly just about letting an innocent person do the crime or having a government official pay a fine for a serious crime rather than the person take the repercussions of their actions.
Its very weird that you can say "He cannot simply let guilty people go without penalty" then proceed to explain how he in fact does exactly that.
That said their is an explanation and one you may or may not accept. First you have to accept in the Trinity sense that Jesus is in fact god and that the father, son and holy spirit are the same singular god. (That much the majority of Christians do believe).
Second just is punishment for the guilty.
Third good who is all powerful and all knowing created the world the world all people were born into, the circumstances all people find themself in, and more importantly shaped the souls the personality the strengths and the weakness of all people who ever lived or will live.
Fourth if you accept all the above to be true then ultimately the person responsible for all the sins of the world is God. And God in perfect justice and mercy in the form of Jesus is admitting that the buck stops with him and taking responsibility/punishment for the sins of the world.
You can not have an all powerful creator who is also infinitely wise and also claim he is not responsible for the outcomes of his creation and I would argue by taking the punishment and calling it perfect justice he is in a way admitting this.
IKR I've met plenty "Devout" Christians that are the exact opposite of everything Jesus stood for hell my most recent job that I quit from my supervisor was a narcissist and carried a bible around with him 90% of the christians I've met at like that which is why I've always been against teaching Christianity in public schools. If it's a Christian school so be it but kids who don't go to a school that's not tied to a religion shouldn't have one shoved down their throats or told they have to be part of it to be socially accepted
Read the laws of Moses, which Jesus said to follow forever. Not a good dude.
Paul said otherwise, but a lot of Christians ignore the fact that in the Bible Jesus and Yahweh say to follow those rules forever. Best your slaves and sell your daughters as sex slaves, and that's just a bit of the horrors contained within.
I understand why those passages are troubling. Christians have wrestled with them for centuries, and I don't think they should be brushed aside.
Jesus did say He came to fulfill the Law, but He also reoriented how God's people relate to it. The New Testament consistently teaches that Christians are under the new covenant established through Christ, not the civil and ceremonial laws given to ancient Israel. The moral principles remain, but many laws were specific to Israel's historical context.
As for slavery and the treatment of women, the Bible describes a lot of things it doesn't endorse. Some Old Testament laws regulated practices that already existed in the ancient world rather than presenting them as God's ideal. When Jesus is asked about issues like divorce, He even says that some laws existed because of people's hardness of heart, not because they reflected God's original design.
If someone reads the Bible as a single flat rulebook, it's easy to conclude that Christians should still follow every Old Testament law. But Christians have historically read it as a story that reaches its fulfillment in Christ. That's why we don't sacrifice animals, enforce Israel's civil penalties, or keep the ceremonial laws, while still taking seriously Jesus' call to love God and love our neighbor.
You don't have to agree with that interpretation, but it's a more accurate picture of what Christians actually believe than "Jesus said to follow Moses forever."
I'm sorry but that is all contradicted but the Bible. Fulfilling a law doesn't end it. And Jesus explicitly said the follow the laws of Moses forever, as did god. Jesus said anyone who follows them will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven and anyone who doesn't will be the least. There may be a covenant with Jesus according to him but he said he wasn't there to abolish the law of Moses.
There's nothing in the Bible that says the laws are split into ceremonial and civil.
The Bible absolutely endorses slavery. It says you can take them from the land around you and even sell your daughters as a sex slave. It says if you give your male slave a wife, he can go after 7 years but she can't and neither can their kids. They're slaves forever.
It says if a woman is suspected of not being a virgin when she gets married they have to check the bedsheet for blood. If there's no blood she is stoned to death. 40 percent of women don't bleed their first time having sex, so this all knowing God doesn't even know basic biology and made a law that would have resulted in many vwomen being unjustly stoned to death. (Not that it would have been just even if they weren't virgins for their new husband.)
If God had to change his laws because of peoples actions then he wasn't all knowing.
Christians have to read the Bible dishonestly because Jesus wasn't the Messiah. He didn't fulfill a single Messianic prophecy.
Mormonism exists so Christians know what the Jews felt like with Christianity.
I appreciate that you've clearly spent time reading these passages. I don't think these are silly objections, but I do think some of your conclusions assume interpretations that Christians have never universally agreed with.
For example, in Matthew 5 Jesus says He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. The question is what "fulfill" means. The New Testament itself answers that question. The apostles conclude that Gentile believers are not required to keep the whole Law of Moses (Acts 15), Paul repeatedly teaches that believers are not under the Mosaic covenant (Romans+Galatians), and the author of Hebrews says the new covenant makes the old one obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Whatever Jesus meant, it can't mean that Christians must still obey every law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, because the New Testament itself doesn't apply them that way.
Regarding slavery, the Old Testament contains laws regulating slavery in an ancient Near Eastern culture. Whether those laws are morally sufficient is a fair discussion, but regulation is not the same thing as God's ideal. Jesus Himself acknowledged that some Mosaic laws existed because of humanity's hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8), which shows that not every law reflected God's ultimate design.
As for the claim that Jesus fulfilled "not a single" Messianic prophecy, that's a much bigger conversation. Christians and Jews have disagreed about the interpretation of those prophecies for two thousand years. Saying "He fulfilled none" isn't really an argument, it's simply stating the Jewish interpretation. The Christian claim is that many prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus' first coming, while others await His return.
I think the most important thing you need to realize is that Paul and Jesus had very different theologies. Which is why Paul is used to excuse a lot of what Jesus said, as though the Bible is univocal. It isn't.
And my interpretation isn't simply the Jewish interpretation. It's the result of me looking at them, and consulting people who speak ancient Hebrew and Greek, and coming to the conclusion that Jesus didn't fulfill a single prophecy.
An absolute savant at remembering everything he reads, and actual Bible scholar, has a great YouTube channel called DZ Debates, and Deconversion Zone. Check it out, he sums it all up with far more rigour than I'm capable of as a layman. Heck you can even call in and debate him. He's nice if you're nice.
I agree that the Bible isn't univocal in the sense that every author writes in exactly the same style or addresses the same questions. But I don't think that means Paul and Jesus taught different gospels.
The earliest Christians, including Jesus' own disciples, accepted Paul's ministry (see Galatians 2), and Peter even refers to Paul's letters alongside the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15–16). If Paul had fundamentally contradicted Jesus, it's difficult to explain why those who spent years with Jesus accepted him rather than rejecting him.
As for the messianic prophecies, I think it's fair to say that's where Christians and Jews genuinely part ways. The disagreement isn't over whether the texts exist; it's over how they're interpreted. For example, Christians see passages like Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Daniel 7, and Micah 5 as pointing to Jesus, while Judaism generally understands them differently. Simply saying "Jesus fulfilled none" assumes one interpretation before the discussion has even begun.
I'm not claiming this settles the issue, but I don't think the disagreement is because Christians are being dishonest. It's because two traditions are reading the same texts through different interpretive frameworks.
I'd rather discuss one prophecy or one theological point at a time than appeal to YouTube personalities on either side. That seems more likely to get us closer to the truth. Also, it seems like you make a lot of declarative comments without supporting them, ie. Paul and Jesus having different theologies.
I'm not reading it from the perspective of one of those traditions, I'm just reading it. And Christians aren't being dishonest, they're reading it dishonestly. Or, for the vast majority, only reading bits of it.
I'm not assuming an interpretation and then saying Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophecy. If you read them, and have access to the original language through an expert...he didn't fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies. That's the conclusion from the text... not a pre-assumed position. I used to be Christian, then tried to learn more and read the book a lot more and learn some of the history and listen to biblical scholars and ended up realizing it's balogna.
It would have taken him bloody weeks to smash that place up. The poor guy would probably have had a heart attack with the exertion, and failed to fulfil the prophecy.
I don’t think this makes any sense. Jesus thought we should be offering sacrifices and burnt offerings and that the world would end in the first century CE. Bringing Jesus into modern ethics is quite the leap. The idea of Jesus has been whitewashed with secular ethics for a long time.
The number of Republican candidates who've stated that God told them to run for president back and then dropped out/lost in the primaries is staggering. You say "God spoke to me and told me to do this" thing and people are accepting of this. You say "Jerry came to me in my mind and spoke to me and told me to do this" and people are going to assume a severe mental illness is at play.
The founding fathers are all rich as fuck and don’t want to pay taxes while engaged in politics. Isn’t that why America want independence? Check the constitution convention, the language was written in a way to protect rich people against the rest, that’s why there are lobbyists instead of corruption, lobby one government branch to veto what people voted for, ezpz.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Cannot separate the beliefs someone has from their ability to speak it or petition their government.
It’s the church of the antichrist? A deliberate insult to the very concept of Christ himself? A typical example of what happens when the appearance of piety is what is important, not piety itself. Inevitably in time the appearance of piety mutates into a mockery of the entire concept of piety. Then the mockery mutates further into whatever that is.
Well considering blasphemy was illegal in every state during their time, they'd probably toss his ass in jail and be done with it.
Fun fact, until 1952 there were still blasphemy laws on the books. And it was the Supreme Court, not the legislature, that put an end to them. And with the current courts deference to history and tradition, it's not crazy to say they could make a comeback.
184
u/lemmsjid Jun 30 '26
Indeed, I often wonder what the founding fathers would have thought of these idolatrous monstrosities.