I don’t get it why spend lots of money to have some fancy logo on a plain coloured shirt made by Chinese children, when you could get the same thing without the logo for under $10. I guess it’s a status symbol
There’s another verse of the bible that says “all things are possible with god”
However…One thing the bible is pretty consistently against is liars, cheaters and thieves.
To be a mega-church preacher, you need to be a liar a cheater, and you need to know how to run a scam, so that would fall under the category of a thief.
“Give me all of your money and god will cure your cancer!” obvious scam and a lie.
“Give me all of your money and god will make your credit card debt vanish” is another thing I’ve seen mega-church types say.
The one time Jesus was ever violent was when he flipped tables and used a whip to get all the merchants out of the church. But under 100% of other situations, he literally wouldn’t fight anyone even if they attacked him unprovoked.
Does that sound like the kind of guy that wants a church to be a for-profit business? Mega-churches claim they’re non-profit, but all of them live in giant mansions and own multiple private jets and multiple cars that each cost more money that I’ve ever earned in my life.
I’m non-religious, but I’m more in line with what Jesus wanted people to do than 99% of self proclaimed Christians.
Luke 19:45-46: Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there; 4and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.”
Yeah, I don’t believe these megachurch pastors believe the word of God at all, or they wouldn’t be in that line of work.
Somehow in being an atheist I’m a more honest Christian than them in that I at least state outright that I’m not a Christian. That’s more honest than pretending to be Christian just to leverage people’s hopelessness to scam them into an even more dire and hopeless situation.
Jesus is actually hiding under my couch right now. When I first saw him down there, I asked him what he was doing there and he said “I’m hiding from the Christians”
The boss upstairs set him up with a pocket dimension with his own utilities down there, but sometimes when it’s just him, the cats and my dog in the house he’ll come up to my room and watch me play video games.
He doesn’t like my taste in video games, he’s put off by the violence in a lot of them. But when I showed him video-essays on how “the flood” works in halo, he compared it to the bullshit megachurches are always doing, how they infect people and extort them into giving up their money.
Jesus is a really cool guy…modern day Christians on the other hand…that’s another story
99% of self proclaimed Christians hate megachurches.
If the figure is that high, it gives me hope. I wonder if there’s data on this somewhere.
Megachurches are definitely among the “principalities and powers” we struggle against.
If they’re not outright thieving, they’re just self-help seminars preaching about how “Jesus and Americanism are actually totally compatible for realsies.”
Consider all of the nations with Christians, and all within. You have large denominations like Roman Catholics who make up the largest portion of Christendom, a sizable amount of Orthodoxy and then protestants. Protestantism itself is divided into denominations. You have classical protestants which also rule out megachurches, such as the Anglicans/Episcopalians (Anglican communion forming the third largest Christian communion) Reformed/Presbyterians and Lutherans. Maybe a little sprinkling of Moravian and Methodist in there. Then you have evangelical Christianity with Baptists, non denominationals, some pentecostals. There’s low church baptists who again would mostly be anti megachurch. Imagine your small rural congregation “me and my KJV” type.
Generally to get to the megachurches you need to go down the pentecostal/charismatic side of the non denominationals. Sure there’s a sizable amount, but when you put all of Christianity in perspective, you can see it’s a small slice.
22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Matthew 7:22-23
I shudder to think of how these types have deluded themselves. To think they’d meet their Creator and say something like:
“Look, Lord, I know we locked the homeless out during a blizzard and used desperate peoples’ resources to buy a private jet, and undermined the Gospel’s perception across the entire world at every turn…but we raised so much money…for YOU!”
“Give me all of your money and god will cure your cancer!” obvious scam and a lie.
“Give me all of your money and god will make your credit card debt vanish” is another thing I’ve seen mega-church types say.
Incidentally, there’s a conjecture around Christian circles I’ve seen that says these kinds of actions are what the phrase “thou shalt not take the lord’s name in vain” actually warns against.
Not cursing, as it has become commonly associated with, but the literal act of using the lord for vain purposes. Like saying “Give me your money and god will cure your cancer”
I really really really hate people who write code in chats as if they are demonstrating some incredibly amazing skill. Doubly so because they so often fuck it up.
Why is this getting upvoted? OP is using irony. The No True Scotsman fallacy requires refuting a counterexample as well as “The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc.” Check out the “Occurrence” section.
Because there are people who really don’t like how right wing conservative Christians behave, but also for some reason hate when other Christians agree that the behaviour is unacceptable and call them out on it.
You’re not calling out shit. You’re refusing any responsibility by claiming they’re not even really Christian. They are, and until you admit that, nobody gives a fuck about your claims to the contrary. Christians can be shit, that doesn’t make them not Christian you absolute dingus. If you’d actually read the Bible you’d know that slavery and homophobia and sexism are as fundamentally Christian as any love thy neighbor shit
You suck at telling stories like this lmao, you’re the one no true scotsmaning shitty Christians to try and avoid any flak for being associated with them. Legit this comment is utterly incomprehensible, tf is your point? Who’s guy? Who’s everyone? I assure you far from everyone thinks that republicans aren’t real Christians
The argument that everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, and also every Christian belongs to the same group and is responsible for the actions of everyone who claims to be a Christian, is patently absurd.
You can have two people with wildly different beliefs, but if they both use the label Christian somehow they are both responsible for the actions of each other.
Those people also call themselves Christian tho, and probably call you a fake Christian. That’s a big thing in Christianity, insisting that your brand of it is the only valid one. Yall are silly as hell, admit that there are shitty christians or accept that we don’t give a shit about your half ass condemnations of shitty christians
You can and absolutely should call them out. You can call them fake Christians if you want I guess, but that’s not really calling them out, it’s clear you’re just saying it to make yourself look better. No matter what your take on them is, I know for a fact that they’re Christian, and you trying to cut them off from yourself like that just makes me think you’re a lot closer to them than you’re letting on. I can hardly think of any times I’ve seen Muslims deny that the Taliban are real Muslims, or Jews deny that zionists are real Jews. Why is it so hard for Christians to do the same?
You can call them fake Christians if you want I guess
Okay, so we agree that if someone says “This behaviour is not in line with the teaching of Christianity” then someone responding with just the words “No True Scotsman” is stupid, useless, and contrary to the point?
you trying to cut them off from yourself like that just makes me think you’re a lot closer to them than you’re letting on
“You trying to say your beliefs are not they same as their beliefs makes me think… you have the same beliefs”? How does that logic hold up? Someone directly saying “They are not representative of what I believe” means they ARE representative somehow?
I can hardly think of any times I’ve seen Muslims deny that the Taliban are real Muslims
Their behavior isn’t in line with your brand of Christianity, it very much is in line with theirs. Just because you think you and your church are the only actual Christians doesn’t make that the case.
“How does that logic hold up?” If you really didn’t like them, you’d just denounce them, straight up. You wouldn’t be so desperate to make sure we know that not only are they shitty, but you specifically have nothing to do with them in any way. You’re both Christian, this is a fact that you can’t weasel your way out of no matter how badly you wish you could. Continuing to pretend otherwise turns your denouncement into hollow self praise.
If you don’t have anything new to contribute besides flapping your arms harder about how they’re not really Christian, I’m done replying. I hope you get better at actually, meaningfully opposing the evil parts of your religion instead of simply distancing yourself from them
Their behavior isn’t in line with your brand of Christianity, it very much is in line with theirs. Just because you think you and your church are the only actual Christians doesn’t make that the case.
And here I thought we were making progress when you said
You can call them fake Christians if you want I guess
Don’t know why you’re suddenly walking that back.
If you really didn’t like them, you’d just denounce them, straight up.
In what way is “They’re not Christians” not a denouncement, straight up? It is literally, directly saying, “How they behave does not reflect what I understand Christianity to be in any way.” How can a Christians denounce their behaviour more than by saying “I don’t consider them to be Christian”?
Denounce: verb
publicly declare to be wrong or evil.
Publicly saying “They call themselves Christians and they are wrong” is the dictionary definition of denouncement.
You’re both Christian, this is a fact that you can’t weasel your way out of no matter how badly you wish you could.
What is the definition of Christian? If it’s “anyone who claims to be Christian” then the definition is so broad as to be completely meaningless. “You’re both Christian” is just as relevant as saying “your both American.” So unless every American is responsible for the shitty behaviour of any other American, it makes no sense for every person who calls themselves a Christian to be responsible for the shitty behaviour of anyone else who calls themselves a Christian.
People are literally publicly saying “I do not agree with any of their beliefs or behaviours”, what more would you have them say?
If I call myself a Scotsman, despite not meeting the definition of a Scotsman (never been to Scotland, have no Scottish heritage) then it would be fair to call me not a “True Scotsman.”
If the definition of “Christian” is “someone who follows the teachings of Jesus” then someone who spreads hate does not meet that definition.
If the definition of “Christian” is “anyone who calls themselves a Christian” then the definition is so broad it is useless as a descriptor. It includes someone who is loving and caring, and someone who abuses and murders anyone they disagree with. It tells you nothing about the individual or how they behave.
No, I’m saying that christians are people who claim to be christian.
As I said, useless as a descriptor. By that definition the word “Christian” includes someone who donates time to charities, as well as someone who spreads hate about immigrants, wants them sent back to their own countries, and wants to bomb those countries.
The word “Christian” could be applied to a person that wants to take away a woman’s right to medical care, and to a person that is pro-choice.
Hell, the word “Christian” could apply to someone who has never set foot inside a church, has never seen a Bible, and has no idea what’s even in it, as long as they “claim they are a Christian.”
By that definition if I tell you someone is a Christian it doesn’t tell you if that person loves Trans people or hates them. As I said, a useless descriptor.
Incredibly convenient thing for “polite Christians” (read: enablers) to say while the overwhelmingly powerful structure borne of their freely given money, time, and prejudices ruins the country.
Never fails, Christians (ostensibly “”““real””“” ones lol) always go to this, such a convenient out for rancid, unserious, responsibility denying dingdongs
Attend Churches where pastors and preachers proselytize about anything "Sinful"
Call themselves Christian proudly
Wears crosses
Says its forbidden by God to do something that the Bible says is bad
Uses the words of Saint Paul to expand on those words
Damn that sounds like they are Christian, but you know, I guess they’re “not true Christians” because they happen to do everything on Saturday instead of Sunday, or don’t wash the feet of the poor, or something else that caused a schism 200 years ago.
This staunch denial of any responsibility for other shitty Christians is why nobody likes or respects you. Do something about other hateful Christians, don’t just fucking deny that they exist. Pathetic
Oh, so you’re just a troll who wants to piss everyone off. You were kinda doing an OK job, but now it’s way too obvious. I hope this shit gets tired for you some day💖
Sure bro. Because there aren’t atheists who have noticed the discrepancy between the messaging in the Gospel, the rest of the Bible, and what parts bigots love to point to and what they love to ignore, and they can’t possibly think some kinds of theists are worse than others
These people: act in ways that is the opposite of loving their neighbour
Sure as fuck sounds like they aren’t following the teaching of Jesus. Going to a church doesn’t make someone a Christian any more than going to my garage makes me a mechanic.
Evangelicals call it “prosperity gospel” and it’s a total perversion of Jesus’ teachings. Basically, it claims that rich people deserve to be rich because their wealth is proof that they have God’s favor. It’s used to explain away why preachers are allowed to own private jets, yachts and diamond mines.
Considering I know that Jesus asked his followers to give up earthly possessions to join him, I don’t trust those con artists pretending to be God on earth. God wouldn’t favor people doing the opposite of what he sent his son down to preach.
Let’s say it takes half a second to copy/paste and submit the message. That’s 50 seconds saved, round it to one minute. You’re only doing it once, so let’s cross over to yearly. According to the Munroe Automation Scale, you can spend up to 5 minutes on it.
I’d say that code took about 1 minute to write. Maybe 2.
Caveat: This is all written assuming the message is being written on a computer with a real keyboard. But if we’re assuming this is written on a phone, then my analysis doesn’t apply, but then again, writing a java program to execute in your messaging app is also a terrible idea. Which means we’re suspending disbelief, so I choose to believe that a computer keyboard and shortcuts are available.
Type the phrase once. Select all. copy, paste, paste (the first paste replaces what you already have highlighted, the second paste adds a second copy). Now you have 2. Control + A, Control + C, Control + V… Now you have 4.
It will take you only 7 cycles of this get 128*, you only need to copy/paste it one by one if you want to send each message separately. and even then, it’s would purely be copy the original, then paste, send, paste, send, paste send, paste, send.
Assuming you can hold down control and just hit ACVV 7 times, that’s 28 keystrokes. I’d bet I can get that done in 5 seconds or less (i tried it, it’s less than that), so now I only save 5 seconds. Which means I only get 25 seconds to write the script. Which he chose to write in java for some reason?
[print(“I’m sorry”) for x in range(0, 100)] is actually a script I could write in less than 25 seconds.
*And I disagree with the “reason 4” given. She didn’t say “exactly 100 times” she said “100 times before I forgive you” and to me, “before” implies >= and not ==. So if you drop it in 128 times, that exceeds the criteria. No one has ever rescinded forgiveness for receiving extra apologies.
I feel like when you title your post “Hilarious”, you’re being sarcastic. Are you, perhaps, aware that this is actually pretty unfunny? Yet you posted it here nonetheless.
To me it makes me think of the intellectualization of revolutionary theory to the degree that it’s no longer revolutionary, merely a means by which academics can advance their careers. I get that impression with a lot of western Marxian/critical theory from the last few decades tbh (although that doesn’t mean the works don’t contain interesting ideas).
A quote from Marx that I like:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
Yet some academics remain content to idly interpret while benefitting from the spoils of imperialism and colonialism.
Oooorrr it’s just a comic by an anti-communist trying to point out a perceived hypocrisy so they don’t have to engage with the ideas lmao
lemmy.ml
Active