this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
828 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2200 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him “don’t understand” their religion.

“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”

Kinzinger, one of Trump’s fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that “Trump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he ain’t a Christian and he’s not ‘God’s man.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Matthew 19:24

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

They have an excuse for that. It's really fucking stupid.

There are two popular interpretations for the phrase “eye of a needle.” The first theory is that it is a reference to the tiny hole at the top of a sewing needle. Simple enough. The second theory is that it is a reference to a gate with the name “the eye of the needle” that was in first century Jerusalem. The gate was so small that anyone that hoped to get a camel through would have to take all of their baggage off the camel, get it down to its knees, and kind of shimmy the camel through the tiny opening.

You can see why this is important for Bible readers. Either Jesus is saying that it is impossible for a rich man to get into Heaven, or he’s saying that it’s really challenging for a rich man to get into heaven.

https://classictheology.org/2021/10/12/through-the-eye-of-an-actual-needle-the-fake-gate-theory/

Of course, there is zero evidence for such a gate ever existing. Rich Christians just want to excuse their wealth.

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Even with that questionable excuse it would mean you have to give up all of your possessions and humbly come to god on your knees. They really just want to ignore their own book.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Oh, but they tithe! So they don't need to give up anything else!

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Does willing all of your wealth to your children count as giving up your wealth when you die? Cause that seems to be their plan.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is the real answer: tithing absolves you.

The OG priests were every bit the conmen that modern priests are. ‘Give your wealth to God (meaning me, his ordained servant) or you’ll spend eternity in torment!’

In some ways it’s amazing the grift has lasted 2000 years, but then again is there a better grift than capitalising on an existential dread (death) that everyone feels and whose aftermath can’t be proven or disproven? It’s ingenious, really.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It's also stupid because it ignores the part right before the camel metaphor

16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’ c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ d ”

20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

It just says sell your possessions and give to the poor.

Most Christians don't really know the Bible very well. They think Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno are canon. They do all sorts of mental backflips to justify what they want to do anyway.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

I was taught the gate analogy, because the idea is that the camel would be carrying a lot of stuff and that would need to be unloaded before going through the gate. Just like Jesus explains here, the rich man would need to sell what they have and give to the poor so they are not burdened by the desire for things and can then enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, you need to be selfless enough that you're willing to part with everything you have in other to live with God.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Good post, thank you for sharing!

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Not to mention there was a similar expression in use at the time in the east using an elephant. The verse is pretty unambiguous.

[–] isti115@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Let me preface this by clarifying that I don't claim to have the one and only right explanation that everyone should accept, I'd just like to point out that this theory also exists: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/43799

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I have no idea how accurate any of that is, but 'rope' does make more sense than 'camel' and they both basically mean the same thing.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

*enter into prison

FTFY