Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That's a very simple and incorrect view of Christianity. Has the overwhelming majority of Christian history been an example of all the antisocial behavior you described? Yes.
That said, whoever the historical Jesus was, the early followers of his movement were radicals who were opposed to the existing power structure and who said you should love your neighbor as yourself. That if someone strikes you on one cheek you should turn and let them strike the other. That might sound trite now, but that's because it's been a very successful idea. And I'm not saying that it's original to Christianity or whoever Jesus was. But Christianity certainly did a lot to popularize it.
That strain of radical pro-social behavior has been woven all throughout Christian history, but at the same time every type of atrocity and abuse of power has been done in the name of Christianity because it was very quickly adopted and co-opted by the powerful.
Even if we grant that Christianity had a powerful message of love, it was inevitable it wouldn't be sustainable, because having an incorrect model of the world ("there is an all powerful creator of the world who is personally interested in my day to day life") will result in counterproductive behavior ("I should follow directions from this guy who says he's in direct communication with the creator"). But I wrote all this because the idea of loving other people and offering them grace is valuable, it's one thing we can think of as positive from Christianity, and it can thrive in other ecosystems of ideas besides theism.
"Slaves, obey your masters" is not radically opposing the existing power structure. Nowhere will you find a single instruction to disobey the powerful, or hold them to account.
Like I say, people-pleasing behaviour is definitely in there; Matthew 5 is all about not having any boundaries. But you'll notice it's not aimed at powers or principalities, nowhere does it suggest that masters should not beat their slaves or that kings should not retaliate to acts of war - and they're certainly not for god himself, who absolutely would not forgive anyone for their ancestors' disobedience without a major blood sacrifice, thus that whole crucifixion thing you might be vaguely aware of (though admittedly it's pretty niche, hidden deep in the lore somewhere). Those instructions are for the little people, to keep them in their lane.
Which is not, to be extremely clear, to suggest that I'm some kind of randroid fuck who considers altruism to be a weakness; very much the opposite. We could have a much better world if more people would be nicer to each other even when they didn't have to be.
It's just that one-way altruism imposed in the context of a rigidly-endorsed social hierarchy just ain't it. If the poor have to do all the heavy nice-peopling while a bunch of rich untouchable assholes work them to death and torture them for lulz, that would fit more into your whole late-stage-capitalism kind of bullshit - and christianity does not one fucking thing to combat that, while actively propping it up round the edges.
To be clear, I'm an atheist now, and don't endorse Christianity.
You're right that Jesus was not calling for violent resistance. Neither was Gandhi or MLK, but that wasn't an endorsement of those in power.
Christian teachings were radical in their time because they rejected eye for an eye and taught that it wasn't enough to love someone who loves you, but to love your enemies.
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
Of course then he goes on to talk about people who didn't help those in need being punished in the afterlife.
As I commented and you're well aware, Christianity does not result in an overall sustainable world view. And if you want someone who says "we should forcefully overthrow those in power" then no, Jesus didn't say that. But his ideas (or whoever they really came from) are transformational, and the OP is justified in asking, "hey why is Christianity like this now?" My argument is that it's because the set of ideas was flawed from the start, rather than that it's a set of ideas made with the intention to dominate and exploit from the beginning.