Skip Navigation

(CW: All forms of bigotry) The New Testament is also filled with nasty bigoted shit! Christianity is rotten to its core and is incompatible with a Marxist frame of thought

This pissed me off so fucking much when people defend Christianity by saying that all of the bad shit is in the Old Testament and that the New Testament is totally fine.

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

Gay people and gender non-conforming people are not allowed in to heaven

1 Peter 3:1

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;"

It's still an extremely misogynistic book even in the new testament

Romans 1:26-27 ... 32

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

...

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Both homophobia and misogyny

I could go on and on, and I probably will in the comments, but it's pretty fucking clear that all the nasty bigoted shit in the book just doesn't go away in the New Testament

You cannot separate the bigotry from the Bible. The Bible is very clear that you cannot pick and chose, that you have to accept the full book or none of it, you can't just take the verses you like and still be Christian. To be a good Christian who follows the entire Bible you must be bigoted

163 comments
  • You could do this with literally any of the major monotheist religions of "the book" (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). It's extremely unhelpful as an argument to get people to leave religion because it does not address why religion exists, or why the vast majority of people globally are religious. To to that, you need to analyse the social function religion plays in our reality, of which organised religion is a key part.

    Nevertheless, another reading can be made of Marx. The often cited phrase--"religion is the opium of the people"--is truncated. What follows this remark lets it be understood that human beings need opium, because they are metaphysical animals who cannot avoid asking themselves questions about the meaning of life. They give what answers they can, either adopting those offered by religion or inventing new ones, or else they avoid worrying about them.

    In any case, religions are part of the picture of reality and even constitute an important dimension of it. It is, therefore, important to analyze their social function, and in our modern world their articulation with what currently constitutes modernity: capitalism, democracy,
    and secularism.

    We also need to move past the false dichotomy of religion and secularism being incompatible as concepts, in particular with regards to Christianity in the western centric parts of the world. The reason non belief, in agnosticism or atheism, grew so much over the past few decades in the West was because the church held onto some archaic positions about the world being 6000 years old, evolution being false, and homosexuality being morally wrong. Religion had detached itself from factual reality, it was easy to bludgeon in this regard. But that is no longer the church or society we are in now, by and large (there still are of course many extreme reactionaries). Modern secuarlism has essentially freed Christianity from its shackles here, there's no need for modern Christians to believe in such archaic nonsense. For example, the Catholic church accepts evolution as a scientific theory, and no longer considers homosexuality inherently sinful. This form of "secularism combined with religion" may in fact lead to reinforcing belief in the long run, and even leading to an increase in Christianity over the coming years in the West. Trying to foster an increase in non belief in this environment is very different to that of 10, 20, or 30 years ago. When I became an atheist, it was in that old environment.

    Contrary to a widespread Eurocentric preconception, however, secularism is not peculiar to Christian society, which demanded its liberation from the heavy yoke of the church. Nor is it the result of the conflict between the "national" state and a church with a universal vocation. For during the Reformation, the church is in fact "national" in its various forms--Anglican, Lutheran, and so forth. Nevertheless, the new fusion of church and state does not produce a new theocracy, but rather, one might say, a religious secularism. Secularism, even though the reactionary ecclesiastical forces fought it, did not root out belief. It even, perhaps, reinforced it in the long run, by freeing it of its formalist and mythological straightjackets. Christians of our time, whether or not they are intellectuals, have no problem accepting that humankind descended from apes and not from Adam and Eve.

    • It's extremely unhelpful as an argument to get people to leave religion because it does not address why religion exists, or why the vast majority of people globally are religious.

      Or how many religions don't even have religious texts or how religion clearly predates writing before those religious texts would even exist. Obviously, this means religious texts isn't a core part of religion as a whole. Maybe for Abrahamic religions, but not religion as a whole.

      • Or even how many believers even know about those texts or would agree with them. If even churches no longer hold themselves to that, were essentially fighting a strawman. For instance:

        You cannot separate the bigotry from the Bible. The Bible is very clear that you cannot pick and chose, that you have to accept the full book or none of it, you can't just take the verses you like and still be Christian. To be a good Christian who follows the entire Bible you must be bigoted

        How many Christians actually practice this? I don't know of any, even the extreme reactionaries who talk about "Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve" don't hold themselves to such a standard, even if they tell themselves that they do. Christians absolutely pick and choose, everyone does, no matter how much they protest that they do not. What's the goal here, to point out hypocrisy? To say that religious people must become bigoted to be true believers? To get people to abandon religion because it's bigoted? Around half of the LGBT community in the United States is religious with around 40% of them Christian, so that doesn't work.

        • I had another post about syncretic religions, and to me, those religions embrace rather than fight the human tendency to pick and choose what to follow. I don't see anything wrong with that. If anything, that's a good thing. You keep the good that you have, you adopt the good from other religious traditions, and you discard the bad.

          People on Hexbear just have a very Burgerlander Protestant understanding of religion, which is very annoying. It's very clear, especially if you observe practitioners of different religions instead of the Evangelical congregation that you grew up in, that everyone pick and choose what you follow. Christians pick and choose, Muslims pick and choose, Buddhists pick and choose, Chinese folk religion practitioners practically just make shit up as they go along, and so forth. Even socialists and scientific socialists and Marxist-Leninists pick and choose from their texts. And that's a good thing.

          And at the end of the day, the Bible is just ink on paper. It's a dead object. The Bible won't physically grow arms to punch you if you don't follow every single passage. Jesus won't descent from Heaven to personally put a foot up your ass if you publish a misleading translation. And another consequence of being a dead object is that a dead object can't react to the times in a dialectical process. But people, by virtue of being living creatures, who both are shaped and shape the environment in which they live in, can be part of this dialectical process. This is ultimately how religion is transmitted. It's not through dead text, but through the practice of living people passing on their traditions and beliefs to the next generation.

          • People on Hexbear just have a very Burgerlander Protestant understanding of religion, which is very annoying.

            People on Hexbear having an annoyingly Yankee understanding of the world? Unbelievable!

163 comments