this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
569 points (99.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

9096 readers
2663 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 7 points 55 minutes ago

I like the last words of chief Hatuey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatuey) before the Christians burned him alive:

[Hatuey], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Spaniards went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honour that God and our faith have earned.

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago
[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 46 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

"Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society. "

  • John Fire Lame Deer
[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 2 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago)

A lot of indigineous thinking captured in one passage, particularly restorative justice.

I was raised Christian but reading texts on Indigineous thought has been what has helped me realize what makes a good person.

Too much in Abrahamic religions is about obedience and blind submission to authority which is why I often feel drawn to eastern religious thought also. Both Eastern religious thought and the indigineous worldview are more holistic in my view.

I find Abrahamic religious teachings to be very exclusionary (hey if you beleive what we beleive we'll let you into heaven) Almost like a country club of sorts. Eastern and Indigineous philosophy (with the exception of the caste system warping into a rigid institutionalized social hierarchy due in part to Western influence) seem to be much more inclusionary.

[–] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 hours ago

Fire indeed

[–] blurb@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 hours ago (2 children)
[–] wieson@feddit.org 5 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'order by book_id,ref_chapter,ref_verse' at line 1--select * from lists where cat_id=3 and pub_id= order by book_id,ref_chapter,ref_verse

I get why people say the Bible is hard to understand and the teaching hard to follow

[–] blurb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 minutes ago

I don't have that issue 😅

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I feel that this is a bit biased. You need to look at it from the Cristian perspective, understand the essence fully, then mercilessly deconstruct it!

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It is just literal quotes from the bible. If anything, your view is biased.

[–] blurb@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I think that reply is satire as they also say "then mercilessly deconstruct it".

[–] SkeletorOfDeath@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

I would describe many people as "wannabe Christians". They don't attend mass, they don't read the Bible except to quote overused passages, and they watch pseudo-historical and religious films and art to strengthen their alleged Christian identity. They don't really believe in God or practise religion for the sake of it, but to distinguish themselves from others; it's about feeling unique, superior and better. Most modern young Christians are teenagers who view religion and belief as a trend or fashion, with an added sense of elitism and classicism. I'm an ex-Catholic and a descendant of Bavarian settlers who were Catholic and assimilated only because of their faith. Faith and religion used to bind people of different ethnicities, nationalities and ancestries together because they had one crucial thing in common. I was the second generation to quit because I was tired of the "holier-than-thou" attitude, of people being berated for believing "in a different way", and of being scolded for trying to find my place in life and forge my own path. I have probably become what Luther wanted to achieve — a reformed Catholic — but not for very long. Nowadays, I am mostly interested in theology and philosophy rather than religion and faith. However, I have noticed that the more you know, the more you are despised. I don't have time for pointless arguments with people who have never read the Bible.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 41 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't Gandhi say something similar?

"I like your christ but not your Christians, they have so little in common with christ" (or something similar)

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I believe this is one of those common misquotes.

It was actually Buddha who said that

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

I like the idea that Jesus spent the 20 years between debating rabbis and his own ministry going east on the silk road and learning Buddhism. I've always felt like base Christianity seems like Buddhist principles through a Jewish lens.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

Some of that “time in the desert” eh?

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I believe Buddha was merely quoting Hastur.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Who was actually quoting Abraham Lincoln, vampire Hunter

[–] Okokimup@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Nah, this was Abe Lincoln paraphrasing Einstein.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 3 points 4 hours ago

The american natives of the great lakes region were considered some of the sharpest orators the missionaries have ever witnessed. A number of them also didn't have rigid hierarchies and believed in the importance of individual freedom. The Dawn of Everything speaks a lot about some of their civic/social beliefs.

Speaking of which, can anyone point me to resources on those early missionaries' records on the natives?

[–] GandalftheBlack@feddit.org 78 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Problem is, the Bible doesn't present one cohesive set of positive moral principles. It's a collection of books written over hundreds of years by many authors with their own beliefs, biases and contexts, so it's not possible to derive one set of "Christian values" from it. This means people will cherry pick bits that align with their pre-existing beliefs and dismiss or downplay whatever is inconvenient or contradicts them, and there are plenty of less than savoury parts to cherry pick from.

[–] Wildmimic@piefed.social 24 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

If i remember correctly (it's been a while), then the Bible becomes a lot more coherent if you throw out the old testament, and keep to the new testament only - which actually is what christians should do, because the sacrifice of Jesus is a new covenant which supercedes the old one with Moses.

If you keep to the NT, then there isn't so much ambiguity - evangelicals who cite from the OT are even more backwards than catholicism itself is.

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Jesus himself says that he didn't come to abolish the old laws, but to fulfill them.

The whole book is worthless.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If i remember correctly (it's been a while), then the Bible becomes a lot more coherent if you throw out the old testament, and keep to the new testament only

You mean the one that starts with four tellings of the same story, that contradict each other heavily ?

[–] GandalftheBlack@feddit.org 6 points 3 hours ago

Including a fabricated census of the entire Roman Empire which for some reason required men to return to their birth towns and left no historical or archaeological record

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The sermon on the Mount and specifically Matthew 5:18 I think or something like that explicitly says that nothing from the law has been removed or invalidated by Jesus.

This is a common sentiment in American Christianity but it doesn't really seem to be backed up by the text.

[–] RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

I think most modern exegesis of that verse rather tightly constrains it to rabbinical law, bearing in mind that the Sadducees and those upstart Pharisees (of which JC was one) were battling out questions of the law at the time JC was doing his thing.

So just saying I think you're right. Otherwise, no football on Sunday for many multiple reasons!

[–] GandalftheBlack@feddit.org 19 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Not exactly. In fact, this is a gross oversimplification. The New Testament contradicts itself and plenty of mainstream Christian beliefs. Different NT authors have drastically different views of OT law, ranging from the view that the OT law should still be upheld (Matt 5:17 where Jesus says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."), to completely rejecting the old covenant (Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear."), and a range of nuanced views in-between. You can torture the text to reconcile to make it fit a particular view, but that's not an honest way of reading a text.

Also, wholesale rejecting the OT on the basis that the new covenant supercedes the old is incredibly problematic. I can understand saying that in the case of a contradiction between OT and NT you would go with the latter (although even that is an issue), but if you reject the OT, you're missing out on essential developments in Israelite and Jewish history, thought and literature which is essential to understand the NT. It's bad enough as it is that the tradition of mystical literature which so heavily influenced post-exilic Jewish and early Christian thought is overlooked. The last thing people who want to understand the NT need to do is throw out the OT.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 41 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

and there are plenty of less than savoury parts to cherry pick from.

There is literal god approven genocide for example.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 5 points 4 hours ago

And slavery. Don't forget the slavery.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 hours ago

God shouuld have realized this when He chose His Favourite People.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This site is not mobile-otimized at all.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 8 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

it's not really great on desktop either, but it still has a 2013 copyright, so i assume that's what they decided the world is stuck with.

the tl;dr is basically every claim in the bible is contradicted by another claim (or claims) in the bible

edit: if you're interested in this sort of thing, i highly recommend bart ehrman's presentation on another major problem with the bible: translation(s) https://youtu.be/pfheSAcCsrE he's a biblical scholar who grew up staunchly devout, but became agnostic after becoming a prominent authority on the topic of the bible. GEE how did that happen...

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

If the scholarly aspect is of any interest to anybody, i can recommend this playlist by center place. The lectures are an excellent deep dive into christian history and concepts. I am no christian, but have spend hours listening to this gay mormon preacher teach about things like how the christian god was created from a mixture of different polytheist gods, who Baal was, or why Christians are obsessed with sex.

The style is more like a university lecture than a fast paced yt video, but i really learned a lot from it.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 hours ago

There was an earlier Simpsons episode with that exact concept. Basically Flanders needs to make some big decision to be naughty and takes Bible clippings for and against and they are nearly evenly weighted if I remember the episode right.

[–] Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 hours ago