[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.

Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.

And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn’t make them hypocrites?

For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.

Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.

  • jobby@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    The point he makes about the only evidence for JC’s reality as a person is other people much later pointing at each other and saying “he said so”.

    If, as he said, any real evidence beyond hearsay can be produced it might he credible.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      They aren’t much later on. A number of the texts are composed within decades of his death. It’s much later in that we have copies, and they definitely had some edits along the way, but they are pretty early.

      There’s arguably much better evidence a historical Jesus existed than a historical Pythagoras, for example. Do you doubt Pythagoras existed?

      Or even Socrates - we only have two authors claiming to have direct knowledge of events around what he said, and the earliest fragments of their writings comes from the same collections of texts as early Christian writings, and the only full copy of Plato is centuries older in production than the earliest full copies of both canonical and extra-canonical texts.

      What evidence for Socrates or Pythagoras do we have beyond hearsay?

      • jobby@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ok that’s fine, but please examine the differences in motivation.

        Let’s say Plato etc are indeed made up. There’s little money to be made or social control gained via their fictitious being.

        Let’s go further down that path.

        The ideas and examinations of nature, and the basic sciences of understanding our universe, even if done by one or more people under the guise of some fictional characters are still incredible foundations for rational thinking over the next two and a half thousand years. Again: advancing understanding and what we know as ‘science’, not direct social control and making money off the punters.

        Religion… well… That’s something else.

        There are huge profits to be made from telling people stuff about how various magical creatures can inflict punishments, heal illnesses and forgive bad behaviour.

        The motivations are clear. Humanity hasn’t changed a crumb in several thousand years.

        Follow the money.