• ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I can’t find any sources for this now, but a while back I read an article that basically said in the 1500s (roughly) people were starting to turn against the rich holding the bulk of the wealth. So the rich met up with some priests over a tankard of mead and came up with the idea that the church should say the rich deserved their wealth.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The south were pissed the north judged them for slavery, so they schismed the Baptist church to the southern Baptist church, where the only difference is that slavery was a commandment from God, and black people deserved it becausw of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham?wprov=sfla1

      It’s weird how many religions tell you to obey priests without question, isn’t it?

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      That is weird to me because Jesus repeatedly condemned the rich. He even violently kicked them out of temples by whipping them and flipping tables. Jesus even said the wealthy will never enter into heaven. Jesus was essentially a proto-communist

      • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Former Christian here, I’m still very partial to this verse:

        Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Jesus also didn’t proclaim himself to be the literal son of God, nor a part of God. That was invented by the churches some 300 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

        Both Judaism and Christianity had their scriptures altered over time, serving political goals of the scholar’s class. This is why Islam puts such a strong focus preserving the Quran exactly as it was revealed.

        • Zxq@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Can you please expound upon that point, re: Jesus didn’t proclaim himself to be the literal son of God. Never heard that before.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sure. So in Islam we believe that God and the creation are seperate. All Prophets (peace be upon them) are humans, who have been given prophethood for their virtuous character. Any powers outside the realm of human capacities were granted by God to aid their mission, but it wasn’t their inherent powers.

            For a longer read on this from an Islamic perspective i found this article: https://www.reviewofreligions.org/27744/jesus-son-of-god-historical-context-long-read/

            As for the development of the Christian idea that Jesus would be the son of God. This is a Greek/Roman idea that was pushed to dominance around the fourth century. Notable is the Council of Nicae, where it was agreed that the concept of Trinity (with Jesus as son of God and some abstract holy spirit) should be the used. As for the reason why, it is likely that the Trinity was chosen to make Christianity more palatable to Polytheists, despite the rejection of polytheism and embrace of monotheism being fundamental to the Abrahamic religions. This is also why the concept is strongly rejected by Jews and Muslims. However also Nontrinitarian Christians exist to this day.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Outcomes
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian#History

            • Zxq@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              That’s an interesting take. Having been raised Christian, but now mostly agnostic, it’s a view I had not heard before. Thanks for sharing this.

      • ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I agree. I look at it this way…how many of those that claim to be Christian actually have Christian values or live by the Ten Commandments?

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          …how many […] actually have Christian values…

          All of them, it’s how you know what “Christian values” really are (not just the cleaned-up public-facing image they use for marketing) and it turns out they’re pretty shit.

      • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Many Christians have never read the Bible. They hear about eternal salvation so long as you dunk in some water and say you’re sorry and they’re sold. If they even consciously think about it in the first place.

        Christianity is just another one of Plato’s caves

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The Marquis de Condorcet wrote about the evils of Christianity back in the 1790s.

      He wrote about how it was a tool of oppression, not just of the person, but of the mind and spirit.

      And nothing has changed in the last 200 years.

    • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Well that might explain christianity but what about other religions like Hindu, buddhism etc.

      The idea of religion is different there and it’s more of a way of life rather than believing in a supreme god.