politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The cornered rat has entered the chat...
The more the "Christians" try to prevent change, the more people they will drive away from the church.
Don't do that, they are indeed Christians not "Christians". I don't accept the no true Scotsman fallacy, these people are indeed Christian, they are the dregs of what that religion teaches. Own it, fix it, don't just claim everyone who sucks in your religion isn't a "true Christian"
I disagree with this on the basis that Christ explicitly teaches His followers to Love unconditionally, care for the vulnerable and needy, and makes an example of those who use the sanctity of the Temple for personal gain. People who call themselves "Christian" while very deliberately doing the exact opposite of the things Christ taught are very literally not "True Christians", because they do none of the things commanded of them by Christ. This differs from the "No True Scotsman" because there is a whole specific list of criteria differentiating a True Christian from a false one.
I also remember Jesus telling his followers to sell their properties and buy swords. Also remember them violently lopping off a Roman soldiers ear (why does god incarnate need armed followers?) and Jesus himself being violent in the temple. Jesus was an apocalyptic cult leader, trying to get himself martyred by pissing off the religious authorities and by calling himself king while in a Roman province. Disturbing the pax Romana during a pilgrimage month, when the Roman Legion was called in to the city to keep pace during Passover.
Not disagreeing with your point, but the soldier's ear probably isn't the best example. Luke 22:49-51:
I agree for the most part, and I left the Catholic Church I grew up in for that and many other reasons.
However, isn't Christ's message supposed to be "you shall love your neighbour as yourself"? When it becomes "hurt your neighbour as much as you can" does it make sense to still call it Christianity?
Since it's been that way basically from the beginning though, maybe well meaning Christian people should just step away and start over.
I've always understood 'neighbour' in this context to mean 'fellow Christian'. Everyone else is fair game.
That’s theologically insane. It’s been doctrine at times and is how catholic slaving was justified, but it flies in the face of one of the recurring themes of the gospels: that you need to love your enemies and people you don’t like. That’s the point of the Good Samaritan, it’s the at the time equivalent of “a priest and a well respected christian ignored an injured Christian, but then some random Muslim guy showed up and just helped this stranger just because he was hurt, be like the Muslim guy”
I get your point. Mine is that there's the ideal and the reality. I'll give the title to the ideal and let the self righteous know they are pretenders.