this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
705 points (98.9% liked)
Greentext
4936 readers
1442 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
for time to leave
They were Protestants and hated Catholics. Still doesn't make sense.
I mean I hate everything about catholicism too. I mean I hate all religions, but catholicism specifically. But I don't burn their symbols. I just avoid any circumstance I would have to be exposed to of it.
But yeah, still doesn't make sense to burn a symbol you share with the people you hate. This is just their silent screams of self hatred. Not loud enough to drown out the "everything besides white people" hatred, but still somehow present. I guess they can't even like themselves. Too busy hating.
Gotta get that hate-love ratio under control.
What makes you hate catholics specifically over other religions?
Not the regular people. I've got no problem with them. Known several, never had any issues.
This is more of on the scale of a "big pharma" kinda thing. I think the biggest benefit that idiotic system could ever have to have any hope of getting even half way back to breaking even on their good/bad balance is completely dissolving and actually donating their billions of dollars to something besides buying a new golden throne, and secondly, to execute every priest in their ranks who did the CSA.
Then there's the whole spreading their beliefs by force thing.
I mean they probably all have secrets that are terrible, but that group in particular hasn't been good, ever.
Without a doubt
Yes. Yes they are. Also, I think a "radical Christian" would be the opposite of the KKK.
Also, I think a “radical Christian” would be the opposite of the KKK.
A millennium and a half of Christianity would say otherwise.
Yeah they are reactionary christians. A radical christian would be like the Catholic Workers and Dorothy Day, or the Fasci Siciliani, or Leo Tolstoy
I guess I'm a radical Christian then.
I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love, so I try to treat others with tolerance and love. And not fake love like "thoughts and prayers," but real love, which comes with action.
John Brown was a radical Christian, and he's okay in my book.
Truly an American hero.
Pretty telling that he's not mentioned in history books. I didn't learn anything about him until well into adulthood.
It's always funny when I hear this, currently teaching ELA in Florida of all places. So, we all heard of the cuts to education, stop teaching certain bits of history (please fill me in on the correct term, I currently remember trump or Desantis' buzzwords about not teaching slaves being enslaved and them being "indentured" and "learning valuable skills!" the cunt.)
Anyway, our current section for this lesson plan is on Harriet Tubman, underground railroad, teaching the kids how to get characterization from the text and follow context clues, stuff like that. John Brown is mentioned, and in my counties' plans is a side lesson on John Brown, what he did, which works better for me since I should be teaching history regardless. I'm telling these kids all about him, what he believes in, and how raiding that armory is what caused the federal government to come crashing down on him, all the crazy radical badass things this man did.
Now, as I'm teaching these things, in the back of my head I'm thinking "This is surprising.... Isn't this supposed to be forbidden knowledge right know? What got cut?" Anyway, sorry for the walk of text. Slightly drunk, figured it fit here.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I am in a VERY fucking red part of Florida. Lifted white trucks, truck nuts, punisher stickers over blue line American flags, the fuckin works. You guys should see bike week, you'd swear it was the second coming of the führer.
I don't know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to "state's rights" and specifically "slavery wasn't the major cause". For 'what" state's rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The 'silent racism' of the North was even worse than the South's violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it's attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
Oh I got to cover the "many came back" part too, in the form of the fugitive slave law. Thomas Sims for example, people just grabbed off the street in the north and dragged back south because the good ol' boy system of the courts got some cash from detlaring any random black dude a runaway slave was also prominently taught. Again, NOT DEFENDING MY HOME STATE. Just wondering what the hell I'm missing.
He might've been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn't learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I'm in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They're definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
Yeahhhh that's definitely more than a little fucked
load more comments
(3 replies)
I feel like "tolerance" is the wrong word here. If you instead strive for "compassion" you'd be closer to the mark.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn't go around pointing out others' mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn't know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn't mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don't hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
- gay marriage - I'll even include polyamorous marriage (assuming consent)
- drugs - any restrictions should merely protect those who don't use it (e.g. BAC limits for driving)
- prostitution
- gambling
I'm morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn't hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that's not my business and I'll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn't any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
- Love God
- Love neighbor as yourself
He didn't say, "love saints more than sinners," in fact he said we shouldn't judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it's just lip-service and I'm no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn't love just like faith without works is dead.
Sure, but also "love the sinner, hate the sin." Compassion still feels more appropriate.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don't wanna argue with the premises here. But isn't Christianity also a bit stupid for praying towards the instrument that's been used to torture and kill their leader.
Just imagine you are Jesus and come into a modern church. You'd run away screaming with all those crosses triggering your PTSD. And that's before you've even heard of all the atrocities they're doing there in your name.
Besides what everyone else said it used to be a fish, and the ChiRo (the one that looks like an X and a P) Symbol. It's easy to see the evolution into the cross.
Sacrifice is a big thing in Christianity, the cross is the symbol of the biggest sacrifice that God did for us, on Christianity canon.
Totally. And it really makes sense when you think about it...
God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving and he created man in his own image... And then doomed them all to an eternity of suffering because... reasons.
God was known for being petty and jealous, so he forced humans to destroy their food to prove that they love him.
God, being all powerful, I guess changed his mind about wanting people to burn for eternity, so being the all-powerful, all-loving being that he is, he changed his mind and deleted hell so that all humans could enjoy eternity with him... LOL jk.
No, instead he split himself into another being and became a human with the sole purpose of being murdered in 30 years so that humans didn't have to burn for eternity...? Actually, I kind of lose the thread at this point. It's never been clear to me why an all-powerful god would need to create such a bizarre, convoluted, byzantine means for redemption when he could have just snapped his fingers and made it all go away.
But all of that makes sense when you think about it as just another sacrifice to prove to god that you love him, and our rudimentary understanding of symbolism is all we need to prove this. After all, there's no need to read any other books, therefore this has to be the deepest, most profound thing ever written. I mean holy shit, Jesus is the "lamb of god" that needed to be sacrificed! Just like when we burned our food! Wow, talk about deep connections. No human could ever think up such an amazing story with such deep symbolism!
Anyway... I lost my train of thought.
You might enjoy reading about Gnosticism, where the world was created by a dopey lesser god, and that's why there is suffering.
The core of Christianity is originally the redemption, not the threat that necessitates it and often is more prominent.
The cross is a symbol of the sacrifice made to redeem people from the threat of hell. More relevant here is that sin separates humans from God, and through that sacrifice, the connection is restored. It is a catalyst of redemption and reunion. In that sense, they don't so much pray towards an implement of torture as an implement of liberation, salvation and mercy.
Given that those are hard things to put in a visual, tangible form and that humans tend to place a lot of value in visual, tangible representations, it's basically the simplest symbol you could come up with as a nascent cult.
It's not the only symbol, and particularly during the rise of the Roman church, you'll note that icons of saints become very common too. Some places will even have the Crucifix feature the crucified Jesus as well, to drive home the point about sacrifice and gratitude.
Protestants later held that the worship of saints was tantamount to idolatry and did away with them again, leaving just the core of the message of redemption. There was in some places a conscious choice to pick the "empty" cross rather than the crucified saviour as a symbol that he is no longer dead.
All in all, given his divine wisdom and love for metaphors and similes, I'd think Jesus would understand the point of the cross...
...then proceed to trash the place out of rage over the waste of money and effort that went into gaudy churches and gold-embroidered robes instead of helping the sick and poor.
Not just their leader, early christians were violently prosecuted, they turned their symbol of oppression into the symbol of their faith in an ultimate act of defiance as well as love and forgiveness.
load more comments
(11 replies)
They are stupid, yes, but also are against everything's in the Bible so they don't actually care about Christianity.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Uh...
Yes.
It started out as a prank organization to scare black people... Those outfits they're canonically supposed to be dressed as dead confederate soldiers haunting the south.
If you ask me they leaned too heavy into the racism, and not heavily enough into theatrics and costumes. The problem is they held onto some 1900s sense of injustice, and didn't roll with the times, didn't stay up to date. They didn't evolve with justice or improve on their first poorly selected target... So they became violent and nasty instead.
A shame, I'd love a horse back theater group "haunting" cops and healthcare CEOs... In that timeline the KKK would be a different organization entirely.
If you ask me they leaned too heavy into the racism, and not heavily enough into theatrics and costumes
You know, I watched my wife work all day gettin' thirty bags together for you ungrateful sons of bitches! And all I can hear is criticize, criticize, criticize! From now on, don't ask me or mine for nothin'!
Hmm, we should start a rival organization. We can keep the ghost theme, but perhaps go with dead WW2 heroes that push against fascism and abuse of power of every variety.
Maybe the WWW? World War Wraiths. We can also defend the free internet due to the naming collision.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›