this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
724 points (98.9% liked)

Greentext

4948 readers
1241 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:

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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 0 points 11 minutes ago

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2069436850145993

50 States, 50 Protests, 1day

Feb 5 @ your downtown.

Pass the word!

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago

for time to leave

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 17 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

They were Protestants and hated Catholics. Still doesn't make sense.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kraftpudding@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

What makes you hate catholics specifically over other religions?

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 33 points 23 hours ago

Without a doubt

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 72 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Yes. Yes they are. Also, I think a "radical Christian" would be the opposite of the KKK.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Also, I think a “radical Christian” would be the opposite of the KKK.

A millennium and a half of Christianity would say otherwise.

[–] Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 5 points 15 hours ago

Yeah they are reactionary christians. A radical christian would be like the Catholic Workers and Dorothy Day, or the Fasci Siciliani, or Leo Tolstoy

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 day ago (19 children)

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.

[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (10 children)

John Brown was a radical Christian, and he's okay in my book.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like "tolerance" is the wrong word here. If you instead strive for "compassion" you'd be closer to the mark.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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:

  1. Love God
  2. 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.

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 137 points 1 day ago
[–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 day ago (15 children)

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.

[–] driving_crooner 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sacrifice is a big thing in Christianity, the cross is the symbol of the biggest sacrifice that God did for us, on Christianity canon.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 23 hours ago

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.

[–] Spaniard@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (3 children)

They are stupid, yes, but also are against everything's in the Bible so they don't actually care about Christianity.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 72 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 points 22 hours ago

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'!

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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)
[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 44 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You may be on to something there

[–] droporain@lemmynsfw.com 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›