Christianity is a child of the Jewish mysticism and Greek rationality. For someone that understands philosophy the idea of a god with a body, that looks like a human is absurd.
God is not in space, not in time, since according to Christian theology, these were created with the universe, so they are not independent from the creation. Before that(not in the temporal sense), there was only God.
The highest part of man is the one that is closest to god. The soul, clearly. The soul can partially grasp divine attributes like morality, knowledge, righteousness, etc.
Well, the human body is imperfect due to the fall, it was only perfect in the Garden of Eden.
God does not have a body, obviously. This is not what is meant by this.
Did Northern Ireland adopt the Irish language from Ireland after the treaty then?
Would you say the americans adopted the ebglish language from the british?
But when that happened, the americans were not a group distinct from the british, they were a part of the state that did that, so it is not the case that they adopted slavery from the brits, like it is not the case they adopted english from the brits for example.
1)The british did not invent slavery.
2)Americans did not adopt it from the british because they had been practising it since they emerged as a nation.
No, not really.
If only these nonreligious people recognised how little they know about religion.
I might have changed my views on certain things after coming to the fediverse, and now I see that Lemmy is an echochamber. It seems like right wing and even moderate people just stayed on twitter and “truth social”, which are echochambers as well, especially the latter, clearly, and I end up arguing with everyone all the time.
Hey, do you mind telling me why I got down voted, if you have an idea why, of course?
I do not believe I said anything particularly contentious this time, and I do not believe I said anything factually wrong either.
Not to the early Christians it wasn’t. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.
That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.
Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.
Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.
Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.
They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.
Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.
Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.
The idea that early christianity was somehow “more pure” I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.
Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?
Also, it doesn’t have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.
The question of “should Christians strive for a classless society” is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the “fallen world” authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.
However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after “the base” changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.
It just seems like a natural way to think: an imitation is worse than the original.
But I never tried it, and maybe I will, but I would probably prefer normal meat anyway.
I reckon it doesn’t taste as well, but even if it tasted exactly the same, I would still prefer normal meat. It needs to taste better if you want me to eat it.
Also, if something can’t be disproven, it isn’t science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
Read this. I used to favour Popper, but I now quite like Kuhn. Kuhn is based.
My point is that the scientific endeavour according to Kuhn is not an inherently critical one(as it is with Popper, for example). Science is based on dogmas, positions and suppositions that are not questioned within a paradigm.
Swords were never used for hunting. Spears are much better.
I would add, that the old testament has been interpreted allegorically since before Christianity, since in the Roman Empire, Jews that were civilised had some difficulty accepting the rather nonsensical elements of the archaic books.
This sort of makes sense. The bible is a collection of books that are very different in style, so it makes sense that some are understood poetically, or allegorically, while others are quite literal.
So these seemingly silly elements of the bible were literally never understood literally by Christians, until the reformation, at least.
So while it may seem like modern Christians are trying to reinterpret the bible to avoid contradictions, that are caused by the idiocy of the ancient and medieval people, the reality is literally the exact opposite.