Jesus was a manual laborer who became homeless to travel and preach his message. He made a point to spend time with lepers and the dregs of society, tax collectors being the worse of them all, because they served the occupying army.
His message was for everyone to love each other. It wasn’t open to interpretation. He made no exceptions. The less fortunate and oppressed were even more deserving of love and support from individuals and from the community.
It wasn’t open to interpretation.
And yet, 2000 years later, here we are.
Thats what happens when people decide to interpret. Suddenly Jedus is white, despite that making NO sense, and the bible gets a sequal full of contradictions.
Jedus Chrisp
You know how the Romans collected taxes in there less “Roman” providences? They have rich guys a contract to basically raise taxes and the rich guys payed up front what was owed for their division of it. Then they were allowed to collect taxes beyond what they paid the Romans to make a profit. This is mainly why they were hated so much. Many people might imagine some official going around and collecting taxes fairly, but the reality was they were operating much more like a Mafia extorting protection money out of people, and taking more then most people owed, often to peoples ruin or near ruin. You can also imagine how nepotic this becomes. People who have loyalty to the dominant ruling class would often catch a break, while those disfavored by the dominant faction would often be harassed.
Well that would certainly explain why the tax collectors get such a bad rap in the Gospels.
It’s also the origin of some anti-semitic tropes. After Christianity rose to prominence in the Roman Empire, Christians considered lending money with interest to be a sin, so they were forbidden from working related jobs. This resulted in Jews, who were forbidden from owning land and many other professions, taking up the role of merchants, money lenders, and tax collectors. In the Christian view of the time, they were doing the “dirty work” because they were immoral and sinful, and the nature of the work made them easy scapegoats for many of society’s ills. The reputation has followed Jews into modernity.
I’m honestly not sure how you’re helping defeat any stereotypes here because no one was even talking about Jews until you brought it up.
You know Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, right? How early roman christians viewed and treated Jewish people is reasonable context to include in a conversation about the history.
You know how the Romans collected taxes in there less “Roman” providences?
Well that would certainly explain why the tax collectors get such a bad rap in the Gospels.
Pretty sure it’s a bit related… And there’s nothing wrong with learning a bit more about history
Sure. Judea was one of many such provinces, and of course there were Jews there, though I don’t know how many of them would have actually been working as tax collectors before Christ, seeing how usury is forbidden in the Torah.
Being dispossessed and forced to work in unclean professions was their punishment for killing an innocent man. Nothing antisemitic about that, they knew what they were doing and chose to go through with it anyways.
The problem is that you actually read the Bible. These “Christians” never have. They interpret all right but read…nah.
This isnt entirely true. In the fundie circles i grew up in, it was heavily encouraged to ready the bible cover to cover as many times as possible, on top of that required to memorize entire chapters. They know whats in there and they dont care. Thats even scarier imo.
Apparently they even have apps now that will pull out random quotes from their Bible to justify their attitudes.
I’m European. My mother tried to get me into Christianity. When I was 7 or 8 I asked “If God created everything, then who created God?” I got no answer, ever since that moment, I didn’t want to be religious. My mother tried until I was 14. It failed.
Also, I find american Christians weird. They twist and contort Christianity into something to suit their ideological needs, racism, homophobia, capitalism, nationalism, unilateralism, etc.
That’s not just Americans that do that… That’s pretty much anywhere with any religion.
And don’t forget, those are the people who tell us atheists that “without the Bible, where do you get your morals from?”
Well, we can see what these biblical morals are - you mentioned it: homophobia, racism etcetera. It makes people hateful, while claiming it is charity and compassion.
Religion poisons everything.
People who ask that question are really telling on themselves; they’re saying that without religion they would have no qualms stealing, murdering, and raping. They’re very dangerous people.
FFS I hate that. “Religion poisons everything” no! No it doesn’t! Think if christianity wasn’t a thing they wouldn’t find something else to twist? After all it’s not like any other good thing got twisted, no? Communism, patriotism, charity, heck, even local communities?
Christianity says: Do not do to others what you don’t want done upon yourself. No matter if sinner or faithful, treat all with respect (nagging about becoming christian is ok tho, sadly). Do not fall for greed, lust or pride.
American “Christians” aren’t Christians, same like most of the local Patriots are actually Nationalists and Communism is mostly used as a another tool for simply stealing power.
I know I am pretty much shaking my fist at the sky here, sorry, but I really needed to let it out ._.
Edit: I don’t have much time - sorry - so I will say it here.
- Christianity has defined core tenets - the ten commandments. If you routinely not follow them, you’re not chrisitian, you’re a blasphemer/sinner (if you considered yourself christian in the first place), case closed. So stop with the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, because at this point it’s fallacy fallacy.
- Another thing - some of you all mentioned that Christianity has various differences and all that. True. And honestly good catch. If Americans didn’t break the core tenets.
- And last thing, someone mentioned pedo priests. Yes, I believe they shouldn’t be considered christians and in the spirit of the faith they should, at best, be considered lost lambs. But there’s a difference between Church as in Community and Church as in Institution, and the latter one likes to shield it’s buddies, which is disgusting.
Best of all, I don’t think I am even christian. xD
American “Christians” aren’t Christians
I got bad news for you, Christians have been hypocrites for alot longer than the US has existed.
American “Christians” aren’t Christians
Classic defense by religious apologists and still a fallacy. You don’t wish to associate all the bad Christians with Christianity, so you pull the old “they aren’t real Christians” card. No, only you, a good and righteous and kindhearted person, you are the only one who is a true Christian. Of course. We’ve heard it countless times.
Of course they’re Christians. You don’t get to whitewash Christianity by simply declaring they aren’t.
Which fallacy is this? It’s not the “No true Scotsman” one as explained here: https://lemmy.world/post/37452533/19987098
For example, let’s turn that argument around:
- Person A: “No true atheist believes in God”
- Person B: “But I call myself an Atheist and I strongly believe in God”
- Person A: “Then you aren’t a true Atheist”
Did person A argue fallaciously to you? Or is person B just an idiot who took on a wrong label?
Person B is an idiot who doesn’t understand words because atheist is a simple label with a singular meaning.
To be a Christian someone just needs to identify as a Christian. They don’t actually have to do anything specific with that self identification that aligns with the Bible or any particular denomination’s practices. That is because belief and faith and religion have a massive spectrum of beliefs and practices wrapped up into one. A large number of people who attend religious ceremonies don’t even believe in the deities or take things literally, they are there for the community.
According to Christ himself, this one is pretty central:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
If someone denounces this baseline (and not fails to follow it, but denounces it), there’s not much left to a claim of following Christ.
A large number of people who attend religious ceremonies don’t even believe in the deities or take things literally, they are there for the community.
And these people are people who attend religious ceremonies, not Christians.
Same as someone attending a meeting about Atheism doesn’t become an Atheist by attending the meeting but by being convinced that God doesn’t exist.
Person B is an idiot who doesn’t understand words because atheist is a simple label with a singular meaning.
Is that so? A lot of agnostics call themselves atheists. In general, if you ask atheists specifically about what they believe, quite a few of them actually describe agnosticism, as in they do not firmly believe that god doesn’t exist, but rather believe that there’s no basis in believing that god exists.
The difference between atheism and agnosticism has no practical meaning to the vast majority of unbelievers.
You can’t positively state that something does not exist. You can’t logically be 100% certain there is no God. We know that. So if you love going by definitions, yes, most unbelievers are agnostics, not atheists.
So why do we keep calling ourselves atheists? Because we view the likelihood of God’s existence as so infinitesimally small, the difference between agnosticism and atheism becomes negligible. If we rate the odds of God’s existence at 0,000000001% we can as well just call it zero.
In other words, stop whining about atheists not using the term you’d prefer. We don’t tell you what you should call yourself either.
“No atheist believes in God” is a factually correct statement. It’s like saying “One does not equal two” - a verifiable, objective truth that does not rely on anyone’s opinion.
Therefore, person B made a contradictory statement, and person A would be correct in responding “Then you aren’t an atheist”, because person B stated a verifiable falsehood. Same as saying “One equals two”. We all know it’s wrong.
Christianity has a much looser definition. You quoted it yourself:
A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
So anyone who follows this religion and calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing in the definition says “You must follow the Bible to the exact letter” in order to be one. There wouldn’t be ANY Christians if that were true.
So that leaves us with a whole bunch of people who all claim to be Christian, but have different opinions on…
- how strictly you have to follow the Bible,
- whether racism is condoned or forbidden by the Bible,
- whether slavery is forbidden by the Bible,
- who you can fuck,
- what kind of funny hat you have to wear,
- what food you can or can’t eat,
- whether you have to kill any non-believers,
… et cetera, et cetera.
And all of these people claim the others aren’t the true believers.
Now here’s a very simple question: What gives you the confidence, why should we believe you that it’s YOU, out of all these people, who follows the correct interpretation of the Bible?
That’s why the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to the whole bunch, including you, when you claim the others are no true Christians. Not a single Christian can objectively, verifiably prove that their individual view of Christianity is the correct one.
According to Christ himself, this one is pretty central:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
If someone denounces this baseline (and not fails to follow it, but denounces it), there’s not much left to a claim of following Christ.
If someone denounces this baseline (and not fails to follow it, but denounces it), there’s not much left to a claim of following Christ.
And that is not an objective statement that’s verifiably and objectively true. It DOES depend on personal opinion and interpretation. Other Christians might say other stuff in the Bible is more important. Like killing homosexuals. Or burning witches.
There is no clear definition of an ideal Christian. Never was. Never will be. Every century has its own view on what Christianity has to be like, we just happen to live in one which tends to agree with your views.
In other words, according to your statement, there were almost no Christians a few centuries ago, which is verifiably untrue.
American “Christians” aren’t Christians
No true Scotsman fallacy.
No true Scotsman
Knowing a name of a fallacy doesn’t mean you understood what the fallacy means.
The No true Scotsman fallacy is a very specific thing and it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Here’s the name-giving example of the No true Scotsman fallacy:
- Person A states an absolute statement: “No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.”
- Person B disproves that by offering a counter-example “Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar in his porridge.”
- Person A declares “But no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.”
So for an argument being the No true Scotsman, there need to be three elements. If one or more are missing, the fallacy doesn’t apply:
- Person A does not retreat from the original statement
- Person A offers a modified assertion that excludes all counter-examples by definition (this turns the argument into a tautology: “No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge, and a true Scotsman is a Scotsman who does not put sugar in his porridge.”
- Person A uses rhetoric to signal that change
So why does the no true Scotsman fallacy not apply here?
Because it’s about this change, not about whether something can be classified as something.
Take for example this exchange:
- Person A: “A true Scotsman is someone who lives in Scotland, holds a Scottish passport and identifies as a Scotsman.”
- Person B: “But Angus, who was born in the USA, and holds an US passport and who’s only connection to Scotland is that his great grandma was from there claims that he is a true Scotsman.”
- Person A: “He can claim what he want, he is no true Scotsman.”
In this case Person A
- Did not retreat from the original statement
- Did not modify the original statement
- Did not use rhetoric to signal a change, because no change existed.
That’s what @[email protected] argued:
- A true Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
- American “Christians” claim to be Christians but are largely against the teachings of Christ.
- Hence they are no true Christians.
The “no true scotsman” fallacy is about changing your argument into a non-falsifiable tautology. It’s not about using the words “true” or excluding some group from some definition. And it certainly doesn’t mean “Everyone who calls themselves X surely and irrefutably belongs to group X”.
The “no true scotsman” fallacy is about changing your argument into a non-falsifiable tautology.
That is what you do when you say “They aren’t real Christians because they do X.” It is the poster child of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Unless you think it requires changing after the start of the conversation in which you are completely wrong.
Ok, let me put it in a way that you might understand:
- Person A: “You aren’t an Atheist if you believe in God.”
- Person B: “But I identify as an Atheist and I believe in God.”
- Person A: “Then you aren’t an Atheist.”
You: “No true Scotsman! Anyone who calls themselves an Atheist is an Atheist, no matter if they believe in God.”
Do you see how this makes no sense?
An Atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in God, not a person who calls themselves an Atheist. And saying you aren’t an Atheist if you believe in God isn’t a fallacy but just purely the definition of the term.
Here’s the Wikipedia definition of a Christian:
A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians)
So someone who does not follow or adhere a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is not a Christian. Not by fallacy, but by definition. And it doesn’t matter what they call themselves.
What you are doing is saying they are not really Christians because they do or don’t do X and that is exactly what the fallacy is.
Are priests who molest children not real Christians?
Atheist is different because it is a singular thing, like calling that priest a child molester. He did the thing so that is what he is.
I follow your logic, and it does make sense, but I think the problem might be that those arguing against you are American, not Scotsmen /s
Can we agree that there can be good and bad, or perhaps generous vs selfish Christians? Another issue is “Christian” is sometimes used adjectively, “that’s pretty Christian of you”, which is generally used to mean generous, but has nothing to do with someone’s belief in God, Jesus etc.
Probably a person’s belief in supernatural beings has nothing to do with their ethics, morality or generosity, it’s just that in some societies at certain times there are perceived correlations, and irrespective of whether these reflect reality or not, they, through deliberate conflation of religion, morality, politics etc. can color people’s opinions of those belonging a specific religion.
I very much agree with that. There’s a ton of stuff being mixed up together.
There’s cultural and political Christianity, that both neither require faith (or even belief) in Christ or really have anything to do with Christianity as a religion at all.
And that’s quite a bit of the issue at hand. You have people like Trump, who has no connection to Christianity (the religion) at all, who runs as the “champion of Christian values”, while being pretty much the opposite of that. Because it’s political Christianity.
And here you get a ton of this “us vs them” into play, that doesn’t really have anything to do with Christianity (the religion) at all.
Cultural Christianity is in a very similar boat. In my country, ~70% of the people say they are Christian, according to census data, and a total of ~78% of the people say they belong to some organized religion (Christianity, Islam, …), but only 22% of the people say they believe in some kind of God.
So more than two thirds of these so-called religious people, are not Christian by religion, but Christian by culture. I personally know quite a few people who don’t believe in God, don’t go to church, but who want to marry in a beautiful gothic church and use their Christian label to hate on foreigners and their foreign religions.
They often operate on the “just-world fallacy” too. I.e. if people are poor, starving, arrested, deported, raped, it’s because they deserve it.
Sometimes I wish I could do that, just ignore all logic and believe what you want.
So those people starving in Africa? Oh no God’s plan.
People getting killed in Gaza? Also God’s plan
That Kirk guy getting shot? Evil left, nothing to do with God.
Immigrants trying to find a better life in a different country? The worst people, nothing to do with God.
Aunt Marget died of cancer? Poor Marget, she was just unlucky,
It did not help she had no health insurance? No thats not it, that’s communism
Maybe evangelicals who preach the prosperity gospel believe in “just world”? However in the Book of Job it is made pretty clear that doing everything God asks of you doesn’t help you at all, and might even be a reason that you get shit on. Jesus repeatedly says that his kingdom is not on earth. Anyway…
But if something bad happens to them, it’s because God is “testing them.”
‘Its all part of gods plan sweetie’. Had my mom feed me this line when I wanted to help a homeless person
“Yeah part of Gods plan is me helping him Mother. Now be a good woman and obey like the book says you should.”
This was one of the fundamental experiences of whiplash that shot me straight out of the Christian community. Giant pile of child-fucking hypocrites.
It’s not that you’re not supposed to care, it’s that you’re supposed to despise with blood thirsty hatred the out group, and take pleasure in their suffering.
MAGA christians are fucking evil. I’ve experienced a few of these people firsthand. They’re cruel as fuck to their core.
Man, I think I was an atheist for years before I actually knew it. I disagreed with several things without even noticing for a long time. I’d skip going to church, (hell I would show up sometimes for the beginning and leave just so people would know they saw me that day). I hated LGBT people for a good chunk of it. That kinda stopped after I met some.
Then when someone close to me came out as trans, I didn’t even blink or feel weird about it. But the old beliefs still kinda hovered there for a while still.
That shit is hard to shake when it’s indoctrinated as bad as it was, mostly because of the fact that the fear of hell is reeeeal. It took a movie bringing up the fact that something that I believed was original to the Bible has been around well before it got put into the Bible. That finally shattered holding onto it, and everything else has been catching up ever since.
I’m finally becoming someone I’m not ashamed of.
That started 9 years ago. I still have a group of friends to get back to that tolerate me back then somehow and I need to reintroduce the new me.
Then when someone close to me came out as trans, I didn’t even blink or feel weird about it.
Calling bullshit on that, mate. Anything out of the ordinary, you are going to be curious about. People blink and feel weird when someone swaps playstation for xbox. If you had said that you didnt hate them just because, that would fine. But this “I totally didnt blink at something Im not used to” is a cheap virtue signal.
I dont care who you are, or what the issue is. If some suddenly isnt who you thought they were in some way, youre going to blink. Youre going to have questions. Wanting to understand things isnt bad. And honestly utterly fucking sick of every single person on the internet pretending that they arent the same human being that the rest of us are. If nothing else, youd at the very least be worried about them because of all the stories you hear about shitty parents disowning their kids for being LGBT. But not you, you didnt even blink…
And honestly utterly fucking sick of every single person on the internet pretending that they arent the same human being that the rest of us are
I don’t even know what this part means.
As for the rest of it, maybe I’m not using the word “blink” the same way. Your way is probably more correct. I was using a more substantial version than “blink” seems to mean, but maybe that’s just a regional or friend/family group difference.
But for reference, when I hear it used, it’s more in a sense of being shocked to the point of just kinda a brief mental shutdown, during which one would just blink while they process.
That’s just how I’ve heard it used, but on its face it does sound like it should be a much more minor reaction.
In which case, yes, I did blink. But if I had heard it a couple years before that, I would have had a much bigger reaction. Plus the fact that it was becoming more obvious shortly before they came out.
Either way my point was that at that point in my life I was coming out of religion enough that my reaction was more immediately supportive of my sibling rather than reacting negatively toward them in favor of the religious rules I had before.
I dont care, dude. You want the digital applause for being “one of the good ones”, you go, girl.
I’m an atheist, but I would probably guess that those type of Christians aren’t real Christians at all. It seems to be common in America for people to associate “traditional family values” with Christianity. Which very basically translates to racism and homophobia. So they hide behind Christianity like they’re holyier then thou. These people aren’t Christians, their bigots with disassociative disorders. You were raised by bigots.
I don’t agree when you say “racism and homophobia”. American Christian values are racism and homophobia and misogyny.
I only realised this after I was well past my “Angry Atheist” phase: There are good verses in the Bible and there are also bad verses. Most of the Christians cherry pick. How they cherry pick depends on who they are. In my opinion, there aren’t any real or fake christians. There’s only good christians and bad christians.
…and that’s how I converted to Gnosticism.
Mmmm, love a good gnocchi!
Social media, that’s why. The brain being cooked in dopamine all the time by algorithm and fake news fries the brain. People forgot how to be nice.
Grew up in the south before social media existed. It’s the cause of a lot of problems, but this one predates it by a wide margin. It definitely made it worse, but there is no greater hate than Christian love.
Most Christians (I say most because I have met some good ones) only speak out on the bad things the bible says (eg anti gay) and do nothing on what Jesus says about rich people (“its harder for rich people to enter heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle” etc.) Jesus literally told so many parables of old rich men who couldn’t give up there wealth to worship Jesus, and for being the head of such a largely hateful group, actually didn’t say anything bad against gay people, abortion, trans people and was in fact welcoming of gentiles (Equivalent to immigrant or foreigners to his audience.)
Literally so hard this. I was raised by christians and they were disappointed when I turned out to not be a christian adult. I tried so hard to point out the hypocrisy of them teaching me to always treat others with respect and to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” but being hardcore right-wingers and trump supporters, being racists af and hating trans and queer people. They still don’t seem to get it.
“If Jesus was here, he would join the front lines”, my incredibly Catholic relative that needs to re-read the sermon on the mount.
Reminds me of being a pastor’s son at ~5 and asking the Sunday School teacher if Satan could be saved, since God wants everyone saved. I was sincere–it troubled me that there was a creature that was without hope. Now I understand I should be happy that fucker is burning eternally. He should’ve never messed with God! That’s just normal adult stuff! You live and learn!
Holy shit, I’m not religious at all, but 5 year old u/potoooooooo is the CUTEST fucking thing.
Ugh, children really are innocent/wholesome, and its the adults around them that inject poisonous ass ideas into their minds.
Lucifer/Satan never even actually kills anyone in the Bible, whereas Yahweh commits literal genocide on multiple occasions.
It should also be noted that the serpent never even told Eve that she should eat the fruit, just that she COULD.
Side note that always puzzled me… 1) why would God create a tree that has fruit that teaches you the difference between good and evil? 2) why would god put this tree in the garden in the first place? 3) why would anyone (particularly an omniscient) ever think that the people who have no concept of right and wrong (before eating the fruit) are going to be able to resist it? And finally, 4) WHY IS KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL A BAD THING??
It’s all just so fucking idiotic that it hurts my brain.
If we believe that the various Satans (in the original Hebrew, literally “adversary,” and rendered without the definite article so there are probably multiples of them) are in fact one and the same with the Devil (singular), this link-up doesn’t even occur until the Book of Revelation which is firmly a new testament thing and wholly unsupported by any of the old testament or ancient Hebrew sources from which it’s derived. Making all the assumptions required on basis that this is so, then whoever he was killed a lot of people in Revelation. But not until then.
In old Hebrew tradition, the Satans are sort of the prosecuting attorneys for god. They work for him in order to tempt the faith and righteousness of various people. Several mortal people are also given the moniker of “Satans” when they’re working against the interests of god or various other individuals.
Meanwhile, the notion that Lucifer is also one and the same with the Devil or any kind of Satan is a much later interpolation made when the church(es) of the era wanted to insert a bogeyman into their religion and they needed a justification for it, some time in the AD 200s. Lucifer is identified as the king of Babylon, a mortal, when he has attracted god’s ire in his sole appearance in Isaiah 14. The situation has become so warped that his name was finally removed in the New International Version of the bible and he’s simply referred to as the “morning star, son of the dawn.” (Isaiah 14:12, if you want to go have a look.)
Modern pontificates will also insist that the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is also somehow the Devil, which is dubious. Even if he were, and god were speaking allegorically for precisely half of his rant as we are thus demanded to believe, god smokes him at the end of the passage anyway so it’s a moot point.
Maybe.
On the other hand, there’s no actual evidence that any of this is real in any way. So there’s that…
Oh, one other point of order on that as well: Obviously even if it’s not all bullshit (spoiler: it’s all bullshit), Revelation is supposed to be a prophecy of the end of times which obviously hasn’t happened yet. I’m pretty sure we would have noticed if it did, what with the sounding of the seven trumpets, the worldwide earthquake, the 200 million horsemen slaying a third of mankind, etc.
So even if it’s all somehow inerrantly true, the Devil hasn’t killed anyone yet.
Revelation just reads like a dude who got dosed and is tripping without knowing why. John probably ate some bad mushrooms.
Also, if I recall, many people attribute his apocalyptic vision to what was happening in Rome at the time with Nero.
Buddhism has a more Christian example of Christ-like behavior concerning a “living being Satan”. That is to say, if “living being Jesus” was real, he would be a Bodhisattva, perhaps akin to Kṣitigarbha.
In the story, Bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha vowed:
“Until the hells are empty, I will not become a Buddha.
Only when all sentient beings are saved will I attain enlightenment.”
It is a vow to never abandon any being regardless of their state.
I like that idea. Boundless love and compassion doesn’t stop at the bounds of some hell. It is boundless. It has boundless time, so it will spend an eternity reaching out to even cyclic hells.
Of course! Because heaven and hell are made up and facts don’t matter!
(Maga Christian don’t believe in facts or science)
Nice. I like 99% of what I’ve encountered from Buddhism.
Like so much else, the religion in theory strays from the religion in practice
U Rarzar works for the Ma Ba Tha (Association for the Protection of Race and Religion), a Buddhist organization comprised of both monks and laity. The organization is well-known for its social welfare programs and its advocacy of Buddhism. It is also known for its persecution of the Rohingya Muslims. Buddhist organizations such as the Ma Ba Tha have circulated pamphlets and flyers espousing the dangers of Islam and the imminent Muslim threat. U Rarzar is in charge of the organization’s bi-weekly magazine. In his mind, Muslims, no matter their ethnicity, are a threat to Buddhists. According to U Rarzar, “Muslims and ISIS are the same. It is just the difference of a name."
I said 99% for precisely that reason. Because I haven’t encountered much of it, but know it exists. Now I read another article, so let’s say like 94% now.
