“This is how we should order our lives together,” he said. “And frankly, yes, we are going to impose it upon you. If you don’t like it, I’m sorry, but this is good and right and just if it lines up with God’s standards, and I am going to enforce my morality on you in as much as our morality is God’s morality.”
“You should always check yourselves,” he continued. “Do I believe what God believes? Am I defending what God says is good?”
“And if it is, then you should have the courage to say, ‘This is how we’re going to run our town, this is how we’re going to run our county, this is how we’re going to run our state, and this is how we should run the United States of America by legislating the morality that we can find in the Bible.'”
They can’t even impose Christian values on themselves. And that’s what I’ve noticed about control freaks: those who can’t control themselves will absolutely try to control everyone else. Virtue by proxy is a hell of a vice.
Forcing Jews to have Christian values is NOT Anti Semetic! Anti Semetic is when you DONT Bomb Children!
-Republicans, The ADL AND AIPAC!
What did Jesus have to say about immigrants?
What did Jesus have to say about taxes?
What did Jesus have to say about retaliation?
What did Jesus have to say about money and what should be done with it if you have it?
What did Jesus say you should do with everything you own?
Jesus was a Communist. Own nothing. Share everything.
Yeah, my question for this was “WHAT Christian values”, because if they were going to push the fundamental teachings of Jesus I’d actually be ok with that. What they really mean though, is to hang crosses and Bibles in every school and then watch the government speed run breaking every one of the 10 commandments, never mind the teachings of JC.
They are modern-day pharisees.
These are the same people projecting that respect for others living their own lives was shoving DEI down their throats.
Theocracies must die.
Amen
I have rarely seen a nation further from “christian values” than the United States at this moment.
Good luck. This is a stupid hill to die on. A huge chunk of Gen Z identifies under the LGBT umbrella (around one in three.) There’s no going back.
I feel like that one line from Kingsman (the good one, right before the fight scene in the church) is appropriate here.
Harry Hart: [to bigoted church lady] I’m a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. So, hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon, madam.
And the head of their entire structure has never been religious and, in fact, matches their description of the anti-Christ.
They even carry the mark of the beast upon their heads.
US religious fundamentalism is no different to any other religious fundamentalism. None of those people can see the irony in their hatred in pursuit of a love that they, and only they can define.
You mean their made up fake Christian values. If an actual Christian saw what these creeps consider Christian values, they’d be very upset. Pretty sure infidelity, bribery, cheating, fraud, name calling, mockery, gambling, false worship, casting out of strangers and all the rest is exactly contradictory to the book they claim to hold in reverence.
Don’t forget child rape and murder
Well, this is the Bible… Didn’t want to get too specific, but there is a little bit of child rape and murder in that book…
All Christian values are made up, bruh. But I get your point.
All values are made up. And it shows us who we are.
No, there are.
The “teachings of Jesus” seem just fine: stuff like love thy neighbour no matter what (aka don’t hate minorities), let the one without sins throw rocks first (aka don’t judge), throwing a tantrum at money changers (aka communist).
If only Christians looked up to the one and only character they literally believe is God in human form and try following his actions.
But alas, those Christians are “Christians”, and most know more abot the teachings of Thomas Aquinas than Jesus Christ.
Alas, there are no true scotsmen
Needs to be renamed to “no true Christian” at this point
At what point is something considered an entirely different belief system though?
Part of why there are so many different sects of Christianity is because belief systems can differ quite a lot on what the focus is for followers of the faith.
Even Mormons are considered Christian, but many Christians would put them in their own category since they have an entirely different holy book that they follow.
Maybe it comes back to the word for ‘Christian’ being this less meaningful, all encompassing, definition. In which case, I feel there’s an argument to be made that having at least some other way to show distinction matters, whether that’s a new word or phrase entirely.
For the sake of conversation though, I feel there is some utility in using the word we are already familiar with, in this case ‘Christian’, and making a compelling definition, in the context of the conversation, based on the values echoed in the text. I feel that we can still hold the general understanding that this is a narrow definition, but it’s one made based on those values that we may want to see encouraged.
TL;DR: It’s difficult to have a conversation about any group of people that is made up of a wide assortment of people from different walks of life.
That’s really only true for undefined terms. If I’m scientifically determined to be diabetic, but I say I’m not because I define “diabetes” differently than the medical community at-large, my pancreas still can’t produce insulin. Christians, by every accepted definition, follow the teachings of “Jesus Christ,” hence the name. If any can demonstrably be shown to go directly against those teachings, I’d say the argument that they’re not Christian is pretty solid. It’s only when the claims are defined in non-universally accepted terms that the fallacy exists. Like, “No true Scotsman brushes their bottom teeth before brushing their top teeth,” is obviously not a true statement, but “All true Scotsman have a non-zero amount of ‘Scottish blood,’” is acceptably true as long as “amount of Scottish blood” is actually a determinable value.
I would have gone with RINO, but I get ya. When is a thing not a thing it claims to be though? What’s that thingy called, because it’s this.
As opposed to the traditional catholic values of murdering brown people, burning apostates, progroming Jews, policing every aspect of sexuality, and most importantly enforcing a rigid belief in social hierarchy and the divine rights of nobility?
These xtianists don’t really seem to give a fuck about the Sermon on the Mount very much.
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Denis Diderot
The “I’m not homophobic! You can do what you want but just dont force it on me or my kids” crowd, everybody.
“Sharia law” by any other name.
Sharia Law permits abortions in some cases.
Why would Obama do this?
I remember a particular asshat on DP forums that would try to get me booted all the time, and always crying that there is no such thing as xtian Shariah Law and that calling xtianists talibangelicals was so very unfair and so mean, and oh my god, the civility of it all!
The xtianists definitely have Shariah Law even if, sure, they don’t call it that, duh.
Other than the days they worship and a few other differences about ritual and so on, explain the difference between backward dumbasses of the fundamentalist stripe of either of these Abrahamic religions?
Both groups ache to subjugate women and murder infidels and gays, etc.
How are they going to impose Christian values if they don’t know what those are?
Hating gays and black people. They know them very well. Oh yeah and raping kids. They predator handshake with christians about that
I think the Bible I read had the pages where Jesus raped kids and slung racist slurs at minorities ripped out.
Clearly, based on their voting history, those values are to horde wealth and rape children.
