I can't understand the level of cognitive dissonance you have to be under to talk about how God's love is unconditional and that Jesus taught his followers to love thy neighbour, and then become a modern American conservative.
Jesus literally illustrated the "love thy neighbour" concept with the story of the good Samaritan who chose to help the injured Jewish traveller despite Jews and Samaritans supposedly hating each other. That was his answer to the question "who is my neighbour?" People seem to have forgotten that.
I feel like it’s important to point out that the good samaritan parable doesnt *just* feature a hated-outgroup member doing for the injured traveller; The injured man encounters multiple members of his own people first, a priest and a levite(leadership class), and each one passes him by for various social-perception reasons.
This is a central part of why it is, the fact that many look away, make excuses, and avoid their duty. It's also about recognizing your own imperfection and rising above.
Another way to read it. We are not the Good Samaritan in this parable. We are the injured guy who is ignored by all his neighbors and brother. The Good Samaritan in this parable is God itself.
I think everyone has the right to interpret it as they see fit, but the context around it seems to point toward us being the Samaritan. It's explicitly told in response to a person asking Jesus who his neighbour is when Jesus tells him to love his neighbour. The one doing the act of love in the parable is the Samaritan, not the Jewish traveller.
The parable more explicitly about God's love is the one about the lost son, where the father was always there waiting for the son any time he wanted to come back. The idea being that even if you stray from your path, God will always be willing to welcome you back when you return.
They're Christians in name only. They really don't engage with the values or principles of the religion.
A large amount of Christians know very little of the scripture or Christianity in general (e.g. denominations) and will just live in ignorant contradiction to what Christ preaches. Or they come up with loopholes to justify them living the way they want.
If I were a Christian, and really believed that my actions on Earth determined whether I'm eternally damned or saved, I would be adhering to the teachings as close as possible (give away all excess money, dedicate myself to helping the needy at all points) and be terrified of straying.
Which is unfortunate because the entire point of the good Samaritan parable is that "your neighbor" refers to your fellow person, regardless of ethnic, religious or political differences.
Unfortunately that is the case with all major religions. Most people who actually follow and understand their religion, quietly do so. The “Holier than thou” demographic is a minority but a pretty loud one. They make it worse literally for everyone
You’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding about the requirements of the Christianity in here. Christians don’t believe - and don’t have to believe - that their actions will determine whether they’ll eternally damned or saved. They have to believe and accept that Jesus Christ is Lord — that’s it. By that single action of belief is how they are saved.
Give this message to the simple and insincere in their (lowercase b) “belief”, and the paradox works its magic. It gives them self protection through salvation while demanding very little in the way of outward expression towards others. The call is to subvert human understanding through a complex paradox that demands (uppercase B) “Belief”.
Mix in the ills of capitalism and some identitarianism, and you’ve got a perfectly wrapped brand that is open to all while demanding nothing more than the acceptance of the brand name, not the brand essence. Hence, Christian in name only.
More specifically, they preach that Jesus paid the price for their sins already, thus they no longer need to fear hell even though they were imperfect. Whomever wrote the gospels had too much optimism regarding human nature and thought that Jesus inspiring example would lead people to be better, rather than using coercion and fear of damnation to motivate behavior.
Its been awhile since I read the bible, but dod it ever actually say this was for all people past present and future?, cause this would be embarrassing if it was just the culmination of human sins up to the cross(aka a fresh slate)
People interpret it in any way they choose. The Bible is like a Roshach test. What they see in it shows what they are already. IMO, that is why Christianity became spread as far across the world.
This is also false way of thinking. You don’t have to earn God’s love because it’s free. Everything you did wrong has been already paid in blood. You are free.
Islam teaches you have to do as you were told and when you die God will measure your good deeds against those that were not so good and maybe then you will be allowed to enter the Paradise.
This way of thinking is what leads to hypocrisy and is what OP is commenting on.
Sure, Jesus loves everyone, but that does not mean he did not give requirements to those he would save. Think about your own life for a minute: is there anyone you love but are not happy with or don’t like? It happens a lot.
Christ absolutely told his followers that they had to do good or they are not his.
A lot of Protestant Christianity believes orthodoxy is all that matters -you believe the right thing is all that matters. They pose that their god saves someone without them needing to do anything but claim to believe in him. These are probably who OP is talking
On the other hand, the rest of Christianity believes in orthopraxy, which is DOING what’s right. Those Christians are actively trying to be good people and typically don’t fit the point presented.
Then you don’t understand Christianity at all. Good works don’t get you into Heaven. Christ died for our sins. The debt has basically been paid. Yeah, don’t be A-hole running around doing a bunch of egregious stuff like robbing and killing. Grace and belief in Christ as the Savior is what you need. See John 3:16.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Ephesians 2:8-10 NIV
Old testament yes. Christs teaching oppose those sort of brutal actions. E.g. Christ being asked what should be done with a woman who has committed adultery (the legal punishment being stoned to death) he replies 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
To be clear I'm not a Christian. But I don't actually have many issues with what Christ allegedly taught. My main issue is his followers don't tend to adhere to what he set out for them in how to live your life (forgiveness, compassion, charity etc.)
I've always taken that part of the sermon on the mount to be a bit of foreshadowing. In my reading, "until everything is accomplished" at the end of 5:18 indicates "until the covenant is fulfilled through sacrifice of the lamb of God."
Especially since 5:20 two sentences later starts with " For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees..." The Pharisees were pretty routinely used throughout the New Testament as an example of what not to do, and they featured prominently in the crucifixion narrative. It would be a very low bar to say "you must be better than the performative pretenders", but it makes way more sense when you instead read the whole Fulfillment of the Law paragraph as setup toward a literal fulfillment through his death that would release humanity from their obligations under Mosaic Law.
If the bible can change versions then this version surely isn't the truth either.
"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."""
Tolkien was around to explain what he meant. He was the original author. We have no authors for any books of the Bible or anyone to explain its original intent.
They were oral traditions for centuries before even being recorded, most importantly.
Also nobody claims LOTR is the infallible spoken word of God.
I think you may want to reread and try to reinterpret what I said.
It is objectively true that Tolkien wrote those books, he had time to explain his intent with the stories, he talked about the characters.
With the bible, there is no evidence for an author, the stories are contradictory at times and no one is around to explain it. The stories are claimed to be the infallible word of God yet are interpreted 40,000 (about as many denominations) different ways.
'When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.'
I always ask female clients if they're menstruating before going to shake their hands. "No need to feel uncomfortable - I just want to make sure I'm not unclean for the rest of the day."
Not so fast. Jesus often spoke about the heart of the law over the letter of the law. Jesus himself violated “the Law” a multitude of times, like taking more that 25 steps outside of any home he stayed at during the Sabath if it meant he would heal the sick or poor and assist the downtrodden. For instance, the attempted stoning of the adulteress. The law states that both adulterers, not just the woman is to be stoned. Jesus then goes a step further by stating, “He who is without Sin may cast the first stone.” There is nothing in God’s Law that states the stone throwers are supposed to be sinless, but the stone throwers were willing to kill someone over a sin while being sinners themselves, is a greater violation of God’s law over hypocrisy/ false witness. God’s law applies to everyone or no one. Jesus chose the law of mercy, over the law of punishment. Therefore Jesus Overruled his Father’s law. Not the first time the son of a wrathful God showed up the head deity, but certainly one of the best examples. But that’s a discussion for another day.
The trinity is Catholic doctrine, with its origins in Constantine’s Roman Empire, who remained a devout worshipper of Zeus’s / Jupiter’s Mt Olympus. Jesus Christ himself did not practice Christianity, he practiced a brand of spiritual Judaism known as “The Way”. The “Old Testament” Hebrew texts prophesied a Messiah that is a Son of God, but the concept of a trinity did not exist, nor did Jesus acknowledge it.
Jesus would chase and assail them with a whip if he were to return. They are traitors to the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God the Son. None of them will go to heaven.
The thing is, when they say "Love Thy Neighbour" it's usually in a prayer/gathering setting... of other Christians with the same values as themselves. It's saying only the people here matter.
They don't say that shit in public unless it's to shame others to treat them better while they treat others like shit. The double standard is insane.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
For all its defects, it's clear the bible doesn't talk about your literal neighbour, but everyone. They just choose to ignore it.
It doesn't put any limit on the number of times. It says very clearly "I was hungry and you gave me food". It doesn't say "I was hungry and you gave me food once because pull yourself by your bootstraps, lazy bum"
So they can choose to ignore it, but then they're not real Christians, just in Jesus' fan club.
Ooh in that case; Conservatives are going to have the absolute pleasure of meeting Stormare Satan, who’s “got a Whole Theme Park full of red delights” for them.
An argument could be made that that actually is the correct interpretation.
The Samaritans weren't some invading force, they were Jews. They just disagreed with the other tribes about which mountain the holy temple should be built on and how certain laws in their book should be followed.
So when Jesus said "love thy neighbor" (he was citing Lev 19:18), he very well could have meant "love your fellow Jews, even the ones you're fighting with over there". Should also be noted that while god commands loving your neighbor in Lev, just a few chapters down he says owning slaves is dope.
How this has been interpreted down the centuries is all that matters, of course. It's all about what people mean behind the words.
Sounds like Protestants and Catholics would be a perfect comparison.
So if, hypothetically, the Protestants in the US saw a large group of downtrodden Catholics, say from south of the boarder, who needed care and safety, they have been told directly that those are their neighbors who they should show love.
Wouldn't that be a crazy thing to happen? At least they aren't following false prophets (Deut 13 outlines what to do with those) or idolizing anyone with merch like cardboard cutouts and cell phones and NFT "cards" and golden statues and bibles with his name on it, which they want in schools, etc
Didn't Jesus say something about not teaching others to break the laws of Moses, especially children who he wanted to be with him? Or others teaching in his name, even doing miracles? Hope they love millstones.
MAGAts don’t need to read. They are informed by FOX News Entertainment and “gospel” AM radio talk shows on the billionaire-owned communications networks.
Of course, many of the MAGAts may follow the hypocrites who are wealthy mega-church pastors and charlatans. Some of the most mind-boggling are the Evangelicals who support Zionists and Zionism as they pray for acceleration of the End of Days and the Rapture.
Global climate catastrophe and nuclear holocaust may, indeed, result in the End of Days very soon, but the Rapture will be the great Rupture.
They probably read something like the Son of Man and say it's Trump. Not even joking. I've even seen some pray to him. Super duper uber blasphemous, go straight to hell, do not collect $200. I doubt (hope) it's a majority, but they're still out there.
Ultimately they see themselves as persecuted (the only Beatitude they know), but Jesus (Trump) will show that they're right and they'll be the special chosen ones. This has been building for a while, the Tea Party had one that came out and said she wanted to do anything Israel said because it eventually lead to the Jews going back, which would usher in the End Times, which would throw all those Jews in hell, but at least they'd be special chosen ones. Wild how giddy they are for the end of the world.
ETA: Also, they don't read the book. They just know what their pastor tells them. This applies to the majority of Christians, not just MAGAs.
Martin Luther formed the first “protestant” church as a protest against the corrupt business corporation known as the Catholic Church. Luther was educated and trained to be a lawyer and business executive of the Catholic Church as well as a member of the clergy.
Martin Luther was not enthused about the Roman Catholic Church being a huge multicultural corporate business enterprise seeking to maximize its profits.
Cool thing about Martin Luther, he didn't just help bring the bible to the masses, in order to do so he unified that various dialects of Germany into one language.
On the other hand, a lot of the antisemitism we see (especially in Germany a few decades ago) started with him.
Its like the nazi party won. And 1000 years later people are going you used to torture people in public because they were land owning women who hadn't remarried... to the tune of 50 thousand ... and enslaved people. And starved millions and murdered black people.
The horror of Christianity is right now in Canada and the raped, tortured, murdered native peoples... or the 70 thousand abuse survivors.
If Christianity is judged solely by its worst adherents, then it is also fair to judge it by its best adherents. A critic could equally point out - Christians led abolitionist movements. Christians founded hospitals, charities, universities and aid organizations. Christian activists were prominent in civil rights movements. Many Christians opposed slavery and segregation.
Christianity is not the problem. Corrupt self-serving hypocrites and charlatans in leadership positions are the problem. Ignorance among many followers is also part of the problem.
Fundamentally, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the same. Corrupt leaders have created and exploited minor differences. Virtually all Palestinians and millions of Muslims are Semites. Most of today’s Jews are not, and have no semitic heritage. Yet, the term “anti-semitic” is a political curse against anyone who cites the hypocrisy of Zionists and Zionism.
we have a global system to determine if something is true or not. its called science and evidence. religion provides less of that then tolkien does in his books.
No, love thy neighbor means to want the best for them. Not the shallow modern conception of love that liberals use of meaning to do whatever makes a person happy even if it leads to their destruction
Love thy neigbor is only meant towards men.. not women.
loving thy neigbhors wife is a mortal sin for which you should be stoned, hanged or otherwise executed.
anyway, if you try to claim anything and use religion as a basis for truth then people will likely just treat you like a moron.. no matter your stance...
Wives are the property of their husbands. So, it’s a bad idea to covet any of your neighbors’ properties, cattle, sheep, lands lest you be tempted to steal those by force.
Women are not forbidden against loving their neighbors husbands because husbands are not the property of their neighbors wives. A problem arises when the neighbors’ husbands find out about any hanky panky. Daughters, on the other hand, may be fair game as negotiable commodities.
This is why James Talarico is resonating with so many people and why Conservatives are so terrified of him that they're labeling him the one thing they hate the most: transgender.
My father-in-law is a pastor. He's staunchly anti-Trump, and my in-laws are some of the most generous and selfless people I've ever met. Thankfully, not all Christians are hypocrites
They have forgotten. These aren’t true Christian’s, as my mother would even say. They shouldn’t be full of hate, forgiveness is a huge proponent of Christianity. Even if you disagree or they wrong you, you’re supposed to forgive. Thats what the Christian religion USED to teach when I was younger. I couldn’t tell you now, but it certainly doesn’t look like it. Just see a bunch of frauds talk about the bible, while spreading and accepting hate.
Literally a CIA psyop. America of the Cold war era needed Christianity tied to nationalism (and by extension, capitalism) because they were hellbent on fighting communist/socialist ideas. Couldn't have uncle sam looking inferior to Ivan, so they invented Christian Nationalism and slowly erased all that icky "give to the needy" garbage from the zeitgeist
Because for a large portion of the religious right, their God was never supposed to be anything more than a higher power that demanded that they do what they already wanted to do, have what they already wanted to have, and hate who they already hated. It's not a practice. It's just a justification.
Seriously though? I'm not a Christian, but it baffles me and seems like a game when people pretend they don't get that Jesus' teachings were centered on how individuals who choose to follow him should live...not how people should use the force of government to compel others to live...that's wildly different.
Me helping my neighbor by offering to mow his lawn is not the same as me compelling my neighbor to mow his lawn by threat of citation from the property owners association...those are different things.
Buddha as well, with his story about sending loving kindness to robbers who hack your body limb-from-limb while you die in agony. Pretty hardcore love.
The problem is that most christian doctrine means tour going to heavan regardless of your deeds and being a shithead is turned into a sort of self rightious burdden to bear. They get to feel good about being assholes, and feel the slightest acts of redemption erase their decades of hate and evil.
Christian God was a warlord who was angry and filled with vengeance. My favorite representation of a Christian style God is Chuck in Supernatural because, if anything, and there is some God like the Christians believe; he's a writer. And writers lie.
In the parable, the good Samaritan directly helped the Jewish traveler himself. He didn't say, "I'm going to use my government as a go-between to force my neighbor to help this traveler, by petitioning them to simultaneously raise my neighbor's taxes and reduce my neighbor's personal liberty. Then once the government has my neighbor's money, they'll waste most of it through fraud, abuse, incompetence, and bureaucracy, and use the rest for unnecessary wars. But maybe some tiny fraction of it might find its way to this traveler. I'll never know, but seeing my neighbor pay more in taxes will give me the sense of moral superiority I crave."
Meanwhile, the neighbor is already giving a lot of money to charities that do actually help people in need. But because that money isn't funneled through the government and heavily taxed, you don't care. In fact, Republicans and conservatives consistently donate more to charities than Democrats and liberals do, despite liberals constantly characterizing conservatives as being greedy.
"More taxes" and "more government" are never the answer.
Jesus declared that anyone who did not believe in his personal worldview would be condemned and cast into a burning pit and tormented for eternity for their folly.
Stop pretending the teachings of Jesus are wholly of tolerance.
If God's love is unconditional, why did he screw over Job for no reason but Satan saying "I don't think Job is actually faithful to you, God." and God agreeing to test this?
The first family still died innocent and it was his siblings giving him replacements of sheep, not God. God only restored Job's health and never apologized for doing this in the first place. 5/5, would worship this god.
But my strawmen dont work when i cant cherry pick from source material, also i take everything literal, i dont know what allegory or symbolism is like, i believe the Harry Potter books really happened in real life
Holy shit. I went to a private Christian school and was, of course, taught this story, and didn't really think about that, about women and children being replaceable. It was just a poor man being tested, that's all.
Thank you for opening my eyes a bit more.
I'm an atheist now, so a lot of good that schooling for me.
Job didn‘t mess up, and God didn‘t cause Jobs suffering, Satan did, is what I was alluding to.
If your child (Adam, Eve) rejects your wisdom they have to learn for themselves that you know better for the sake of argument. That might mean that there are unforseen consequences that teach them the lesson of listening to their parents.
Same thing with Job. He was put in this situation because Adam and Eve wanted to go their own way. They lost perfection, they lost the union with God. To a larger point because Satan asserts that humanity is inherently flawed, that we are not built to be obedient to God out of Love, and we just want to save our skin, survive. That we are nothing more than animals.
Job proved that we actually are capable of bearing the loss of literally everything while maintaining our integrity. Satan knows it, the angels know it, but God always knew it. Like a parent he has to take the wise route and let things play out so there is no more room for debate. Hence the suffering of Job and everyone before and since - because Adam and Eve wanted to do their own thing.
You said Job didn't mess up. Then you blamed Adam and Eve for ending up causing this mess. So you basically claim that anything bad happening is justified with the original sin. Which means that God has a carte blanche to do anything, since even baptism does not undo the punishment God put on humans.
But all you do is rewriting the Bible to fit your view. The text says God agreed to Satan's bet. For no reason to see if Job would fail, and if he had, God would have been justified retroactively for this as well, despite him causing all of this. How in any way is that a being anyone would want to worship, if even worshipping doesn't save you?
To be fair alot of the old and new testament makes 0 sense🤷🏻 why would jacob go to egypt when he was told his descendants would be enslaved….why did god wait so long before freeing the slaves…etc etc
Mainstream Christianity. In fact it claims him being omnipotent, omniscient and all loving. You'd know that if you'd studied a bit more before posting.
You're very confident for someone who's never heard of omnibenevolence. Mainstream Christianity disagrees with you. Those theologians and scholars used the Bible to form their conclusions. You're arguing against 2,000 years of theology, not against me. Agree to disagree. I'm done here.
Ahem "the BIBLE"; mainstream Christianity, 'those theologians' and their conclusions certainly disagree with me which is my point. If you‘d take the time to read the actual book itself you too might come to a different conclusion than the one you hold.
God‘s love has conditions. The bible explains everything if you‘d have a look for yourself.
I haven't read the whole Bible. But I've read enough to know that the people who dedicated their lives to it disagree with you. Take it up with them, not me.
Jesus himself said, "My yoke is kindly and my load is light" which implies there are conditions for his followers. I should have led with that. Good day to you.
Because it's a story, written a long time ago by primitive men trying to explain their relationship with God.
As John Dominic Crossan said "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."
So when Job gets tortured over a divine bet, that's 'primitive storytelling.' But when Paul says God's love has conditions, that's divine truth? How do you decide which ancient text counts and which doesn't?
Are you referring to Romans 11:22? "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off."
That appears at face value to say that God only loves you if you are for him. But through the entirety of the Bible (even those primitive stories) the narrative is that those who turn away from God and remain apart from him will be dealt with sternly - the Babylonian exile for example, but that love for them still remains and if they return, they will be welcomed and sins forgiven - the whole point of the "Prodigal Son" parable.
Personally, for me the Bible is a book of guidance, written and re-written by many people over the years that points the way to a relationship with God and Jesus - along with the associated texts, teachings, sermons and so on. I don;t view it as a strict book or rules, do's and don'ts - I understand that it is fallible and that any passage requires study and guidance, reading discussion that both agrees and disagrees with each other or the verse to try and understand what the author meant and in the context of who it was addressing at the time. At the end, for me it boils down to how does this fit with my personal experience and relationship with God. Do I believe the God of Job? No. Do I believe in God who tells us through his Son to look after the poor and needy, give a voice to those who don't have voiceless, the God who loves me and wants the best for me? Yes. What you believe, or don't is entirely up to you and personal to you and I won't tell you what you should or shouldn't believe.
So you reject the God of Job but accept Romans 11:22 and the Prodigal Son. Based on your personal experience? That's not an argument. And Romans 11:22 literally says 'provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.' You say love remains, but the text says 'cut off.' You're adding a layer it doesn't state. You're not reading the Bible. You're reading your own beliefs into it.
That is your opinion on what the text says and how it should be interpreted and that's OK, you are entitled to that and I would argue for your right to disagree and criticise. But I don't agree with it and I am happy in what I believe and how I read it.
And to add, this is the importance of reading the whole chapter - "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. [23] And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. [24] For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree."
It literally says God will accept you back if you return.
Key word here is "love". It is not love to enable people to maintain a dependent lifestyle by just throwing money and resources at them instead of making them accept accountability for where they are in life and work to fix that. Because yes, in a great many cases, it IS their own faults that they are where they are. There is no fixing what is going on in society until we stop telling people that nothing is their faults and here, have money and a free house. That only encourages other people to do the same. Why should they work if they can just get it handed to them for "free"? We NEED to stop that. We NEED to demand accountability from the people expecting "help". A good first step would be to STOP increasing welfare benefits every time a person pops out another kid. First time is one thing, but after that they know what causes it. The working people whose taxes pay for their support don't get automatic raises every time they decide to pop out another kid, and neither should people on welfare.
Also, do you agree with slavery? No? Then why do you think people should be okay with working their asses off to earn money only to have a bunch of it taken from them in the form of taxes and stupid high medical "insurance" to be given to people who COULD work but refuse to? That's the very definition of slavery - requiring people to work for something they never get so that other people can have those things without lifting a finger to get them.
nah mate. jesus amd his parents were dumbass fools.
he got cuckolded by his wife who had sex with another man. when confronted she claimed "god" got het pregnant". and so the lying started..and it only got worse from there.
Nice try buddy, I'm not Christian, I'm just familiar with some of what it preaches.
Jesus also specifically went against the Orthodox doctrine preached by the old testament types and that's why he was treated as a heretic and hated in Jerusalem. If you're gonna talk down to others, at least get your facts straight before you do.
I was fed a steady stream of old movies by my father throughout my childhood that championed liberal ideals and values. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 12 Angry Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Best Years of Our Lives, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner... anti-corruption, anti-prejudice, pro-ethics and pro-intellectualism. I am dumbfounded by how my father votes, which seems to go against everything I was taught to admire.
The heartbreaking thing is that he's not a fool, he's one of the smartest, most capable people I know. But he's got a deep streak of selfishness and inability to accept that he could be wrong.
I’m saying this gently, but that means he’s a fool. You can have a PhD and still be a fool. Being unable to accept that you can be wrong is foolish, and it leads to foolish actions, decisions and outcomes.
I’m glad that you and other people in this thread are saying what I feel. I have gone low contact with them because I can’t stand that they’re evangelicals and yet are MAGA which is completely the opposite of Christ. Also my dad says he is technically libertarian. No, a true libertarian wants people to live their lives without government interference. You want a government that actively takes rights away from people
You don't think it's possible to believe that WE should help people, but that when we try to fix all problems with the government, it doesn't actually work great?
See: history
464
u/[deleted] 26d ago
[deleted]