103
Protestantism.jpg
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
103 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13535 readers
921 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
actually reading the bible is a great way to make atheists, so presumably the church discourages it
please don't be disrespectful like that, although I get it. I know people here have had a lot of sour experiences with Christianity in the west, but spirituality is a normal thing. Personally I'm an atheist too, but come on. Your username references John Brown, who did read the Bible and it made him into a militant abolitionist.
Is it disrespectful if it's true? My personal experience is that reading the bible after being raised in a religious environment made me into an atheist, and I personally know a good number of people who went through the same thing.
I feel it paints my religion as for people who have no capacity for critical thought. That merely reading the bible would suffice to cure people of Christianity is snarkily commented on almost every post in reddit or Lemmy atheist communities.
I don't necessarily know if it suggests that people who read it and understand and remain religious lack critical thinking ability. (I personally would quite like to have faith, but cannot justify it).
It more implies to me that a great number of people who are currently religious and yet have not read their foundational texts would probably not remain so if they did.
I can't fathom how someone who is genuinely religious can believe that the key to salvation is knowledge contained within a book they have easy access to, and yet don't ever feel motivated to read it themselves, and I can't respect someone who identifies as Christian or Muslim or Jewish and yet has little to no knowledge of scripture.
To those who've read their religious texts and remained religious, I can respect that as a difference in opinion. To the people who have not done so, I can only think f them as ignorant.
ok that makes more sense to me. Evangelicals for instance haven't actually read their central text, they instead read sparknotes summaries and disconnected quotations. A lot of Americans are also Christian by default and haven't thought seriously about their religion, they just go to church on sunday and say they have faith.
I don't know if simply reading the Bible would be enough to make them atheists. I'd say it more like they're already very disconnected from maintaining a coherent spirituality and their ideology would buckle under the slightest scrutiny. Because their religious faith often boils down to no more than "God lets me do what I want." And how is any kind of ideology maintained if it doesn't inform actions?
If we're going with Marx's statement that religion is akin to medicine (opiate), then the faith that many Americans exhibit is more like a bandaid. Easily ripped off because it was never attached very strongly in the first place. What I'd say about that is a lot of white American Christianity is just dressed up white supremacy or imperialist ideology. It's standard conservative American values dressed up with Christianity as coat of paint to make it more palatable, or make it seem more serious.
otherwise I still respect people who are religious in despite of all of that. If they are inspired into acts of charity and connection through their faith, they know their text and feel comfortable, then that's kind of beautiful to me. Wish I could do that.
it's not disrespect, it's a very common experience which is why people say it so frequently. But i have also encountered lots of religious folks who misunderstand the truth as disrespect. Maybe you did actually read the bible and not just selected verses from your leader or franchise but if you did and maintained your faith that's somewhat unusual.
and there were christians fighting to maintain the institution of slavery just as the only good white american fought to end it. and instructions in the bible about how you could keep a slave you were otherwise supposed to free under jewish law. Surely you can forgive us having a low opinion of a text that can be on either side of the "debate" about slavery.
they don't, and that's presumably what made protestants seem more progressive and such. but turns out you can tell people what to think about the book-club book pretty well with appropriate theatrics.
bonus points if you control which 'translation' of the book you deem permitted
Not in my experience
But how do we get to praying to a large stone pillar? Im genuinely curious, this is such an upset of not just christinaity but protestantism in particular it boggles my mind.
Because the average American white protestant has it in their head that America and white people are a chosen super race that have full authority by God to use the planet as they see fit. They believe this because they will inevitably fail to connect Christian ideas of mercy, charity, and forgiveness to their own lives because their lives are built around a comfortable bubble. The only outlet for their spiritual needs is to believe God has blessed them to do as they please. From their perspective, they feel no guilt over their status, because American middle class society is by design set up for its members to never even see poverty or misery. They live in gated suburbs and drive everywhere. From their perspective, putting in minimal amount of work automatically secures a comfortable middle class existence, so they believe anyone can do it, so poverty must necessarily be self-inflicted or a punishment from the Lord.
Already I hope you can see why these people have any notion of spiritual empathy erased from their souls. They haven't lived in conditions that build normal spirituality. They've only ever lived comfortable privilege on the backs of invisible impoverished people. It wouldn't matter how much they read the Bible directly. They'll freely dismiss the passages they don't feel apply and will instead focus on what relates to them.
For instance, ask a protestant what Matthew 19:24 means. It clearly says, by Christ himself, that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Christ offers a solution for rich people to give up all they own to have treasure in heaven. American white protestants interpret this passage as meaning only "greedy" rich people go to hell, but nice rich people go to heaven. Whatever that means.
Also I'd like to apologize if anyone here mocks your faith. They're being unfair, granted a lot of people have had bad experiences with Christianity in the USA. I'm not religious myself, but sympathize with the need. I'm probably a few bad days away from adopting some kind of neo-shamanism because of so many dead people and pets in my life. I loved my last cat more than any living thing on Earth, and that triggers something in me. I want his spirit to still be around.
Thanks for taking the time, that made sense to me. They see their state as an achievement built by the good and faithful through which god distributes "his" blessings. The luxuries they enjoy because of their nation serve as proof that god not just approves of it, but wants it furthered. This monument to them marks how god is bestowing his blessings and how they can be part of gods plan.
Pretty normal for empires actually.
Oh don't worry I know where those comments come from. The reputation Christianity got is the reason I don't like when I have to acknowledge my religion to people I don't know well, ("what did you do last Sunday?" type of questions) because it might make them wary of me, and I can't blame them really. I sometimes have to do this performative dance to show I'm one of the "good ones that doesn't hate gay people honest!" Because 99% of the time Christians are at least above average in homophobia, which will put others on their guard when I say that I am christian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion. Through this brain rot I imagine
The open adoration for their empire is such a foreign concept to me. I mean we have something similar in Germany but its more abstract, more predicated on looking down on others and congratulating ourselves for our shoddy holocaust remembrance and semi functional welfare systems.
But USians have a whole mythology with hero-epics and grand statues to honor them its like something out of ancient Greece.
Yep, and those heros and the apparatus that holds them up as heros has a way of manipulating the narrative to cover for how shitty they were. The Founding Fathers^TM^ and every president we've ever had were and are just as much of blood thirsty psychopaths as Hitler. The difference being that the genocides of expansion were more complete, the narratives more controlled using soft language and double speak, and the current campaigns externalized and reframed through economic trickery and exploitation of the underdeveloped world.
Hitler and the Holocaust didn't have the retail repackaging for the pubic like American Empire does. Not enough treats, too vulgar and direct.
That's my take anyway. Idk, it's late and I'm tired.
https://assets.univer.se/b9c8195f-0644-48f2-84f9-676136d79a64?q=60&auto=compress,format&w=750&fit=clip
yeah there's a bunch of founder wank for the ancient greeks. it's also why a bunch of our civic buildings have greek (maybe athenian specifically? it's been a minute) architectural features
Everyone at the time was hugely into the neo-classical style, it's just that Europe grew out of it faster than the US did. (Sadly)
Remember that under the Capitol dome there is a mural called The Apotheosis of Washington, which depicts Washington ascending to heaven like he's Christ. This is par for the course.
apotheosis is such an illuminating piece of art its unreal. and people say art historians are superfluous.
but the relationship of yankee civil religion to protestantism (and the specific sects) vs. catholicism is pretty fraught. especially considering how many of the "founding fathers" were not partisan to specific sects
Here's something I learned from a very pivoting podcast episode.
Part of "not having a state religion" meant not having an ecclesiastical authority that could curtail the ravages of settler colonialism. In small settler communities, the church was not accountable to anyone and the members of the church were deputized as law enforcement.
The diversity of Protestant sects and movements meant that they could not be reined in, and on the frontier, the independent churches had no power higher than themselves.
https://www.historicly.net/p/the-history-of-american-christian#details
The ppl who do this pod are super friendly on twitter btw shame it's done for now
History is a flat circle. Like the other reply, the American Civic religion is a new version of the Roman Imperial Cult that was prominent during biblical times. Many of the letters of the apostles contained responses to the social structure of the cult to counter is influence.