Holy shit this is one of the greatest arguments I have ever.
Isn’t it interesting they never teach us that? And all of them claim THEY are the correct ones…
Even religion has gone through evolution.
I went to google “Why isn’t America Metric”
Are you fucking kidding me
Thanks to Catholic Cultures
GREAT WORK BLAMING BRUTALLY COLONISED COUNTRIES FOR THEIR OWN COLONISATION JUST TO MAKE A CHEAP POINT ABOUT RELIGION
*cracks knuckles* Let’s get some history up in here, kids.
People appear to be ignorant about “the vital role Christianity played in the spread of Western empire and the systematic destruction of indigenous cultures and peoples,” so here are a few notes:
- “Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale.”
- “ The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth...”
- “We talked about William Carey, but we didn’t talk about how the British used “protecting missionaries” like Carey as an excuse for imperial expansion in India. We talked about Christianity in China, but we didn’t address the gunboat diplomacy of Britain which was – again – justified as defending Christian missionaries. Or we could turn our attention to the Americas, where Christianity was nearly without exception the primary logic used by the so-called Indian reformers who set up boarding schools in which they took native children away from their homes, forced them to adopt western customs, and punished them for observing traditional practices. (The system they created unsurprisingly made it much easier for whites to steal practically all of their ancestral lands.)”
- “According to Edward Andrews, Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery.” However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.” As the colonial government was taking African land, the missionaries were preaching that it was God’s will that the Europeans do so and that Africans should not resist but be patient since their riches await them in heaven.”
- “The church acted as a legitimating institution for various colonial projects, at times as financier, and profited tremendously from the revenue generated by its increasingly global presence…”
- “there were ample resources for legitimating the use of force to create social, cultural, and political conditions in which conversion by “persuasion” was more likely to be successful.”
- “The Spanish and English colonial projects both constituted empires on which the sun never set, yet the reach of global Catholicism exceeded them both by constituting forms of colonial relations even where there was no formal colonial jurisdiction.”
- “The identification of Christianity with European cultural norms was therefore itself a historical product of significant cultural transformations in European history and in Christian thought and practice. The necessity of differentiating between what was European and what was Christian became important enough to be codified as instructions to missionaries in Vatican documents by the seventeenth century. Hence Christianity’s views of its own history, attitudes toward other religions, and theological reflections on how God orchestrates history and ostensibly uses empires for his own purposes would deeply affect the ways that the church would interact with various colonial projects.”
- “The Catholic Church played a central role in both cases by sending missionaries to work in Spanish territories from California to Paraguay, and in the Portuguese territories from Africa to Japan. The church also granted ideological and institutional legitimacy to those imperial projects, if not always to what it perceived to be the excesses of the conquistadors.”
- “Yet the extension of Spanish jurisdiction over the New World, accompanied precisely by the use of violence, and ostensibly for the purposes of evangelism,…”.
- The most vocal apologist for the conquests of the Americas as just wars was the Spanish royal historian Juan Gines de Sepulveda (ca. 1490-1573)….[He is] known today almost exclusively for his claim […] that the American Indians were ”natural slaves” and fit to be ruled by ”natural masters” like the Europeans. […] This so-called School of Salamanca became a formidable critic of the Spanish conquests of the Americas, and of the use of coercive force for the purposes of evangelization—both of which Sepulveda vigorously defended.
- The primary difficulty with the just war argument […] was that it simply did not describe the realities of the Spanish conquest nor exhaust the many reasons why the Spanish claimed legitimate title to the Americas—and especially why the Spanish and Portuguese empires continued to receive the support of the Catholic Church quite in spite of their ruthlessness and systematic exploitation of indigenous peoples and expropriation of what one Spanish critic called their ”lands, liberty, and property in exchange for their faith in Christ.” […] the massive Spanish colonial enterprise that nearly covered two continents was self-evidently not about saving innocent Aztecs from human sacrifice or cannibalism. Jose de Acosta (ca. 1540-1600), […] was not alone in thinking the language of just wars […] something of an ideological distraction from the violent effects of the wars of conquest
- “As the consolidation of colonial control was most often the means through which the church sought to ”civilize” indigenous peoples, cultural conflicts continually erupted in most missionary contexts. In some areas colonial administrators forcibly resettled populations, forced indigenous people to submit to religious indoctrinations and attend mass, and used force to ”extirpate idolatry” by destroying indigenous religious sites and prohibiting participation in indigenous religious practices.”
- “Although not all of the missions were amenable to colonial control, most of the religious encounters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tended toward religious paternalism and the affirmation of colonial institutions as the order necessary to both civilize and evangelize indigenous populations. By the nineteenth century, new theories of scientific racism replaced earlier classicizing models of humanity and civilization, creating a perhaps more insidious version of the ”white man’s burden” to civilize and Christianize under the auspices of empire.”
In conclusion: if you blame colonized people for Christianity’s many, many sins, you need to sit down, shut up, and school yourself.
^ A++ Excellence.
The bible…now that we can all read…and read it for ourselves…and see the contradictions and bigotry and immorality for ourselves…its “moral” PR image has completely evaporated
i cant believe this
“i feel karishna”
this is a joke right
I LITERALLY CAN’T WITH THIS.
This is not surprising in the least.
DO NOT WATCH THIS IF YOU ARE IN A BAD MOOD YOU WILL PUNCH A HOLE IN YOUR FUCKING WALL
im Sorry but you two cant get the marriage. the bible said Adam and Eve not matthew and ashley. come back when youve legally changed your names
finally done the story of the “virgin” mary and her immaculate conception for my sequential art final. very happy with how this came out/that it’s finished.
it makes me really, really angry when people make jokes about christianity—i realize that a lot of people find the bible and what it says to be ridiculous and whatever else, but it’s not really fair to call yourself tolerant and stand for everyone to have the same rights and to be treated equally and be mad when people make jokes about other religions or cultures, but then to turn around and make fun of literally every aspect that the christian religion stands for. i understand there are people who are very extreme and definitely don’t represent the bible or god himself well, but that’s not fair to make jokes about “saving yourself till marriage” and being saved in itself and so on and so forth in an extremely condescending manner. it’s not so much that people make fun of christianity, even, it’s that these are people i follow and consider myself friends with who are extremely tolerant of pretty much everything else and who hate when people poke fun of said things they’re tolerant of. my faith is important to me even if there are things in the bible, etc., that i’m not 100% sure on and it really sucks to be surrounded by a massive group of “tolerant” people i’d like to call my friends who make fun of something that is really important and personal to me.
tl;dr stop making fun of christianity because it’s a really crappy thing to do
Ok, ok ok ok please do me the favour of hearing me out for a moment. It’s gonna sound like I’m pooping on Christianity for funsies. I’m not. This is an important thing I’m talking about. It might even sound like I’m pooping on you (Shawna) personally for funsies. I’m really really not. I love you. I’m very fond of you and I don’t like you to be upset. OP, I’d guess you’re probably swell also. I hope you have a great day and that bad things don’t happen to you. Anyway.
It’s ok to make fun of Christianity.
It’s ok to make fun of straight people for being straight, or white people for being white, because they’re not minorities. They’re in positions of privilege. A video of a big dog attacking a kitten is disturbing, a video of a kitten attacking a big dog is hilarious. Especially if the dog is leaping around and yelping like it’s actually being harmed.
If Christianity finds something offensive, it has enough power to effect legislation that outlaws it, or at least pushes it to the fringes. Let’s take a look at the saving oneself until marriage example:
Christianity (not all individual Christians, but Christianity as a whole) is certainly at least partly responsible for a culture of rampant sex-negativism. Saving oneself until marriage isn’t an individually harmful thing but having it present as a meme helps perpetuate the idea of sex-as-corruption. “But sex IS corruption”, you might say, and alright, we disagree. So what?
Here’s what: you’re the group in power, and because sex is corruption, workers in the sex industry have to fear the law rather than be protected by it. Kids in high schools don’t get taught how to have it safely. Kids in primary schools don’t get taught how to communicate about it, making them more vulnerable to predators.
The opponents to this idea aren’t the ones in power. They don’t have the means to change that legislation; all they have is words. And promoting the idea that sex-as-corruption is ridiculous and should be mocked is one of the very few weapons they have.
Example over. Now expand that thought out to everywhere. You’re in power. “Why is it ok to make fun of us and not them?” you cry - it’s because you’re in power. It is actually different. Using a racial slur against a POC is a really, really shitty thing to do, because it’s someone in a position of privilege lording that privilege over someone without it. On the other hand, a POC calling a white person a cracker is a 100% non-event. Nobody cares except jerks. It’s ok to do one thing and not the other, because the two things are different.
Christianity’s in power. “But it’s not in power, look at all the places that gay marriage just became legal,” you might say. Yeah, it’s in less power than it used to be, and thank God for that. I really hope that one day it isn’t ok to make fun of Christianity, and making fun of Christianity is one of the things that’ll help get us there.
Just because there is actually a little nuance to this argument: picking on Christianity is okay. Using Christianity as a vehicle for picking on an individual Christian is shitty. Calling out an individual Christian for promoting harmful ideas is not shitty. Calling out an individual Christian for promoting harmful ideas using mockery is a grey area and y’all can deal with that in your own time. I’m not your dad.
Okay, dad lesson over, dad out.
Christopher Hitchens (via halfprincesshalfgoddess)
While I can’t say that I have any sympathy for Young Earth Creationists, I can at least see why they are so desperate to hold on to their beliefs. Virtually every traditional concept behind Christianity falls apart when one considers evolution the true age of the universe.
I don’t want to be a total dick and send this to my Christian friends but I really honestly can’t grip how one could read this and not question their beliefs :/ I really just don’t get it. I’ve passed the phase where I wanted to deconvert my friends, but I see things like this and I want to tear my hair out.
I think Facebook may have an agenda going on here…
By Jack from Better Off Damned.
Suppose the god of the bible does in fact exist… are Christians cowards?
Let me briefly qualify the reasoning behind my question. I see whether god does or does not exist as a separate issue from whether he is or is not worthy of worship. Yet there are some things which are practically unheard of. Such as anti-theist Christians.
It just so happens that god and the believer always see eye-to-eye. Logically this cannot be possible. Christians who believe in free will should agree, no? When was the last time you heard someone say god is a capricious, immoral monster… yet believes he exists?
How many Christians think god hates gays, but they themself do not have a problem with homosexuality? It seems that the Christians who do not have a problem with homosexuality tend to believe neither does god. And they tend to go to different churches or belong to a different denomination of Christianity with very different preachments and interpretations.
I will state my opinion up front. I believe that once you come to the conclusion that your god is immoral, you are no longer hindered by the dogmas which indoctrinate you. Once you oppose god you no longer need to make apologetic excuses and illogical rationalizations for your beliefs. And it doesn’t take long for you to thereafter lose your faith and realize it’s all bullshit.
Some Christians will say there is no such thing as an atheist, and that we are just acting as though there is no god so that we may defy him. But why the pretense? Pretending there isn’t a god won’t help us if there really is one. An omnipotent being would see right through that.
So, why are there no one who both disagrees with god AND believes he exists? Is a believer who disagrees with god too cowardly to admit it, or too fearful to not worship a god they believe to exist?
If god actually existed, wouldn’t there be a larger percentage of ‘believing non-worshippers’? If his existence were so obvious, and so undeniable, then those of us who are anti-theists would not necessarily be unbelievers. The lack of these sort of people suggests that either believers are all too afraid to stand against god, or is one further implication that he likely does not exist. Or possibly… both.
Ask your Christian friends. I have never used this before, but I think it is a strong common sense agrument. Let me know if you’ve ever made a similar argument, or if you use this, let me know how it works out.
the bible says adam and eve so if ur name’s not one of those u can’t be in a relationship sorry it’s a sin
Cis male privilege is everything The Bible says about women and expecting those teachings to be free from scrutiny. Cis male privilege is the influence Biblical institutions have had on the entire western world.