Uh-oh. You knew that somewhere in the next few months the frantic digging for dirt on Harris/Walz would strike gold, and boy, have they discovered some horrific facts about Walz.
First of all, he’s a Christian. Crap. When will we get an atheist/satanist vice president?*
Secondly, he’s a Minnesota Lutheran. I know that sect well, it’s the one I was brought up in, although fortunately, it didn’t take. It probably won’t hurt his campaign with the general public, though.
And then, the real horror show: Tim Walz’s Lutheran Church is a Trainwreck of Heresy and Blasphemy. The news article exposes an unbelievably foul doctrine in which Walz has been soaking for his entire lifetime. This website has been documenting the appalling beliefs of his church.
Pilgrim Lutheran Church in St Paul, MN, is a trainwreck of a congregation. Led by impastor Jen Rome, they are an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) congregation that exemplifies all the most heretical parts of the denomination. Notably, a recent article by RNS identified this as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s (who is Kamala Harris’ radical Vice President pick) denomination and parish.
Some of the ELCA’s greatest hits include:
ELCA Praises and Platforms Lutheran Pastrix Who Attended Pride Parade in the Nude
ELCA Publishes Book For Teens Saying Porn Can Be ‘silly fun’ and ‘safe way to explore your sexuality’
ELCA Releases Hilariously Woke DEI Recommendations For their Denomination
ELCA Publishes Book Encouraging ‘Queer Children’ to Ignore and ‘Limit Contact’ with Non-Affirming Parents
ELCA Church Hosts ‘Queer Nativity Play’, Featuring Mary and Joseph As Two Catfighting Lesbians
ELCA Considers Expelling all Conservative, Anti-LGBTQ Pastors from their Midst
Leader of ELCA Goes Off On Jesus in Sermon, Calling Him ‘Mean’, Troubling, and Even a Little Racist
ELCA Church Recites Blasphemous ‘Sparkle Creed’ + ‘I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural’
OMG. A liberal church. When was the last time you heard of one of those?
They then list the priorities of this church, each one like a brutal slap to the face of ‘normal’ Americans everywhere.
The church, which checks off all the usual pro-choice/ pro-LGBTQ boxes, uses the “Inclusive Bible” for all scripture readings and say they are committed to:
- Antiracism work, de-centering whiteness, and making reparations for race violence
- LGBTQIA+ affirmation and making a safe space for people of all genders and orientations
- Gender equity and ensuring that the voices of women and nonbinary/gender non-conforming individuals are amplified
- Accessible spaces that all bodies can navigate with ease
- A planet we can thrive in for many generations to come, including supporting efforts to uplift and protect indigenous care of the land
Stop it, stop it, stop it. We staunch atheists can’t stand the thought of a Christian congregation supporting the same stuff we atheists and humanists do. What will we complain about if churches are all like that?
Well, I guess we’ll still have the hatemongers at that Protestia website to oppose.
*I am aware that we had an atheist/satanist president already, in 2016.
I have to regard that church as a direct attack on atheism, and one that stands a chance of succeeding.
The horror….the horror…
“*I am aware that we had an atheist/satanist president already, in 2016.”
He was a Prince of Lies, so not just “an ordinary satanist”.
Trump isn’t so much ann atheist as, he just doesn’t care. If religion is profitable—and in this shithole country it always is—he’ll use it.
Sadly the answer to your query is “never.” America is so hopelessly addicted to the opium of the masses that even leftists I run into these days are usually Wiccans, New Agers, and other spiritualist morons who seem to hate atheists as much as the Bible-fuckers do. As if I needed more reasons to HATE humanity.
Edit: Trump isn’t so much an atheist as he just doesn’t care if there is or isn’t a deity.
Well, I guess I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for Harris/Walz anyway. /s
Heretics AND Blasphemers!! How dare those Christians follow the inclusive message of Jesus to respect all people, regardless of their gender identity or race.
It does show that the people trying to smear Walz are utterly lacking in imagination and integrity. I don’t think a modern voter is going to be swayed by Late Medieval talking points.
Next week I suppose they will claim Harris is a witch and the USA needs to bring back the Inquisition?
Not to dredge up ancient history, but from 2015 onward I find it hard to believe atheists hold humanist views by default.
Which is actually as the OP points out, ELCA.
“It is the seventh-largest Christian denomination by reported membership[6] and the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States.” It has 2.9 million members.
So which church is Trump a member of?
If you asked him, I doubt if he could even remember which sect he claimed last time.
When is the last time he ever stepped foot in a church?
Other than to campaign or ask for money, it has been a long time.
raven — “So which church is Trump a member of?” From what I’ve read he attended Marble Collegiate Church in New York as a young person when Norman Vincent Peale was pastor there. In fact Peale is the reason Papa Trump took Don Don there. Apparently Peale’s “power of positive thinking” had some influence on Trump. I recall reading in 2016 how Trump’s refusal to accept anything negative about him stemming from that. Peale married Trump and Ivana there, and Peale’s successor married Trump and Marla Maples there.
Marble Collegiate is Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ. It has an open policy about LGBT folks so possibly Trump wouldn’t have much to do with it now.
Peale opposed the election of John Kennedy because Kennedy was Catholic. Evangelical Christian nationalists and Catholic Christian nationalists are headed for blows if and when someone actually tries to establish a state religion in the US>
Musk is an atheist.
I never felt such an urge to go watch a nativity play until now.
My falling out with “movement atheism” was when I realized that I had a lot more in common with some religious folk than with too many staunch atheists.
Eventually I decided that a person’s religion, or lack thereof, tells me exactly nothing about their integrity or goodness.
It’s just not a particularly relevant trait.
Snarki @ 3
I would describe his as an avatar of Nyarlahotep aka ‘the crawling chaos’.
PZ @ 1
That church is clearly a clone of the Swedish church, formerly the State Church.
They provide grief counceling groups for everybody, not just believers. During the refugee chrisis in 2015 our local church opened its buildings to house refugees from the near east.
FO @ 11
Ayn Rand was an atheist. This is one of the few times the far right is willing to overlook that.
“Not to dredge up ancient history, but from 2015 onward I find it hard to believe atheists hold humanist views by default.”
It is why I would consider myself a humanist first.
The ELCA does have some conservative churches though many left after the denomination allowed pastors who were gay and married to their partners. I also suspect that Minnesota has a moderate number of Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) members (this is a denomination that makes the Southern Baptists look progressive) and Missouri Synod members (more progressive than WELS though not by much).
Walz sounds like a decent human.
Secondly, he’s a Minnesota Lutheran.
Okay, I think I can tolerate that, as long as he isn’t from the Milwaukee faction…
He’s not an atheist. He believes that he is god.
Most atheist I have met are not humanists. At all.
You don’t have to remind me of the failings of atheism.
We do have a WELS church in town, and I visited it once upon a time. It was awful. I also visited the ELCA church in town; the sermon was about how women must be subservient to their husbands.
According to Pew (so take that for what it’s worth) indicates that American atheists vastly lean toward the Democrats.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/religious-family/atheist/party-affiliation/
I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I start to write one sentence and then I finish in a completely different way than I intended.
I never got the knack for proofreading.
Tolerant liberal Christians seem much better than intolerable center-right culture warrior atheists who feign being of the Left. Oddly some right shifting atheists are becoming more aligned with the Christian right in their favorite talking points.
PZ Myers @ 21
Maybe set up an Anglican group in the town to drain supporters from the awful churches? Anglicans have the theatrics on their side, with a monarch as sponsor and 500 years of weird rituals to make the Lutherans look sort of flat and dull.
And the Scientologs should be encouraged to snap up wealthy religious people in town, depriving the two big churches of donors.
I, rather unwisely, read other articles from that website. It’s a dumpster fire of right-wing hate, anger, and bullshit.
It’s people like this who I’m voting against in November.
Holy shit.
Like, Harris/Walz already has my vote. This is just overselling them! 🤣
That list of supposed ECLA transgressions looks mostly fabricated. The ‘Sparkle Gospel’, for instance, has nothing to do with the ECLA.
Whoops. ELCA not ECLA!
PZ @21
Of course not and I’m well aware. I suppose what I really want to do is thank you for your own staunchness through those years. You were the best influence I could have had as a younger atheist and I continue to aspire to your example.
AFAICT, the creepy weird ex-prez isn’t an atheist but an egotheist.
gijoel @ 19: You beat me to it.
The Orange One worships either Mammon or himself, or perhaps both. Thus, not an atheist.
Perhaps some fundies should do a little research into Samaria from about 140 BCE through about 225 CE, and see if that gives them any insight into the “good Samaritan” — and how that relates to the “tolerance for others” preferences of which they accuse Walz’s church of professing.
@birgerjohansson #16
The far-right overlooks anything and everything that will get in the way of getting power.
They are authoritarians, they are xenophobic, they DON’T CARE about consistency.
Only about power.
Rand was a delusional right winger grifter, but she was still an anti-authoritarian.
Taneli Huuskonen @31: “e-Goth”, interesting… favours black velvet and leather, but only on-line? : )
Far right ‘unchristian’, says archbishop of Canterbury as he condemns riots | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/11/far-right-unchristian-archbishop-of-canterbury-justin-welby-condemns-riots
@ 36
The archbishop need to crack open a history book before he goes claiming the right isn’t Christian.
Then again, lying about his filthy superstition IS in his job description.
The thing is I don’t care how “nice” Walz’s little superstition club is compared to the right’s. Your church likes gays and black people. What? Do you want a cookie, Timmy? Do you think there needs to be a Gawd for there to be racial, sexual, or economic progress?
NEWSFLASH!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FUCKING DEITY YOU STINKING, PRIMITIVE SCREWHEADS!!! ALL THE “KINDNESS” AND “COMPASSION” YOU THINK RELIGION SOMEHOW PROVIDES DOESN’T CHANGE THAT FACT!
You don’t need Gawd to be a good person, and you’re not if you think morality and justice requires an invisible, magical, unaccountable, and unelected super being, REGARDLESS of whether he’s a “hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin.”
Ummm…wow. I’m the breed of atheist/humanist that doesn’t really care what other people believe as long as they don’t start using it to make policy/oppress other people/tell me what I should believe. They want to go to church? Fine. I have several friends from college who are pastors, and they mostly preach the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Christianity. For anyone who is a believer, I’m not going to tell him/her that he/she is wrong because it is just a part of that person.
@8: “from 2015 onward I find it hard to believe atheists hold humanist views by default.”
Some of our local Humanists don’t even seem to hold humanist values. They’re so scared of The Muslims (granted there are things to be worried about there, just don’t tar everyone with the same brush) that they’ve crawled into bed with reactionary Christians, and generally gone anti-immigrant and anti-“woke” (whatever the hell “woke” is). One of them even went anti-vax, and was pushing Ivermectin during the pandemic. Which is just a few of the reasons I am utterly disenchanted with the current atheist-skeptic-humanist movement(s).
The Trumps attending Peale’s church might have seemed a bit odd by early ’60s standards, given Peale’s pop psychology power of positive thinking gimmick, but it was still the sort of obligatory Protestant church attendance expected of middle and upper class white Americans of the era. Being a Roman Catholic, a member of a non mainstream Protestant sect like some Pentecostal church, or not going to church at all, would make people look on you with suspicion. Peale was originally ordained as an Episcopal Methodist before becoming a Reformed Church of America pastor.
Birger @15
You are correct in making that connection. The Church and the modern charitable organization known as Lutheran Social Services was indeed started by a Swedish Pastor for Swedish immigrants. Minnesota and Wisconsin both have many people who immigrated from Scandinavia to build railroads for Robber Barons.
Vasa itself is named for King Gustav Vasa, who ruled
Sweden from 1523 to 1560.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Social_Service_of_Minnesota
————
I assume Akira was drunk rage posting… again, along with the Aussie trolls fighting over who is a bigger troll on Mano’s blog.
I hear that Walz likes puppies and wouldn’t shoot one that misbehaves.
I heard that VP Harris is a childless cat lady who has two children and no cat.
“What will we complain about if churches are all like that?”
Oh, we could complain that they all still teach that there is this thing called “The Supernatural”, and that they have confirmed information about it, and that you can have that information about it to if you join them. We could complain that this kind of “magical thinking” mindset contributes to the deterioration of trust in science, education and medicine.
Regardless of how progressive or welcoming a church is, every single one of them promote some kind of philosophy that is detrimental to rational thinking and social success.
No, I assure you I’m sober. I’m just pissed off. Theism and belief in the supernatural anger me. The idea of anyone denying the very nature of reality in favor of primitive superstitions that that belong only to barbarians, fills me with rage as it should anyone who cares about truth.
Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case with some “freethinkers.”
One can follow the values that the Bible shows Jesus Christ to have, or you can be a “Christian” nationalist. But you can’t be both.
And what would those “values” be? Women shouldn’t be allowed to divorce? Canaanites are “dogs” who don’t deserve crumbs from Gawd’s table? Anyone who doesn’t think he’s magical should be eternally punished?
Correction: …are dogs thst ONLY deserve crumbs.
EdmondWherever @45:
I agree, and dogmatic fundamentalism is a major contributor.
But one of the most pernicious forms of magical thinking I’ve come across is rife in atheist circles as well. Like when someone took a course once, or reads pop-sci articles, and becomes determined that they have some sort of deep understanding of a subject. I’m not talking about people who are willing to learn, but those who are convinced of their wisdom. Richard Carrier comes to mind, but I’ve met many more.
The funny thing is that a lot of those misconceptions could be cured by a knowledge of calculus (or, often, simply a more careful reading of the history of science). You know, calculus; that thing invented by a theist (whether you think it was Newton or Leibniz).
This, I think, is where dogmatic antitheism (the mirror of dogmatic religiosity) often fall on its face. The problem is less religion, than human arrogance and simple laziness. A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing.
I didn’t know you were Australian, Tethys.
(Drunk rage posting, eh? Only possible explanation)
The idea of anyone denying the very nature of reality in favor of primitive superstitions that that belong only to barbarians, fills me with rage as it should anyone who cares about truth. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case with some “freethinkers.”
That’s probably because most freethinkers simply don’t have the time to be that enraged at all believers; so we try to stay focused on the ones who are most in denial of reality, or who are most likely to harm others.
I know lots of people who believe in that Bronze-Age god, and say a few pretty silly things, at least in church — but they also seem fairly well connected to reality, and, worst case, quietly adjust their (alleged) beliefs to fit reality. So as long as I don’t see them preaching or practicing actual harmful actions, I don’t need to spare any extra rage for them.
Russia tried banning religion. It didn’t work, and it certainly didn’t produce a freethinking utopia.
I’m perfectly fine with religious belief, and the right to religious freedom, as long as this means I have an equal right to not believe in religion.
I’m not fine with Christian nationalism , which is simply white male supremacy in disguise.
Tethys:
Freethinking is not atheism.
It’s making one’s own determinations.
Russia (actually, the USSR) did ban religion and enforce (religiously!) non-religion.
Of course, Marxism and Leninism and Stalinism and all that, well.
They functioned as a state religion, a functional theocracy.
(Same goes on right now, in North Korea)
—
So, please do not equate irreligiosity with free thinking.
They are reasonably well correlated, but still different things.
Quit trying to start obtuse arguments John. The point is that banning religion didn’t produce a leftist utopia, it resulted in Russia turning into a brutal dictatorship.
So this is what you’ve been reduced to. “I know you are, but what am I?” …
<sigh>
What happened to the guy who could cogently debate the Fermi paradox last month?
Raging Bee@52:
I largely agree with Bee here. I view believers more as children than anything else … we can’t expect everyone to be born knowing an empiricist epistemology, a humanist moral code, and a scientific ontology. The real target of ire probably ought to be the education “system”, if I may use that word loosely.
You do try, Tethys.
But you are not trying.
Who started what again? You are a hypocrite.
(Not like you’re not disputatious there, is it?)
[Be aware PZ is not super-keen on bringing other blog stuff here]
FFS.
How often have I noted this left/right dichotomy is stupid?
Two axes hardly help.
Authoritatian/liberal etc.
Multi-axial systems.
There was no banning of religion, there was a change of religion.
Functionally, anyway. People were martyrs to the ideology. Gave their lives for it.
True Believers.
And my point, which you missed to the nth degree, is that Marxism-Leninism, for example, was in every single respect other than the supernatural one functionally a religious regime.
It was that conflating freethinking with atheism is ignorant.
You, O supposed leftist, are an ignoramus.
No.
Russia (well, the USSR, but clearly you will keep ignoring that) turned into a brutal dictatorship that found it convenient to ban extant established religion (the formalised kind) and replace it with plain old ideology.
The trajectory of history, the inevitability of it all, blah blah.
(It ain’t the phrasing, it’s the sentiment)
Bekenstein Bound attempts to ape me thus:
Heh.
Like those cargo-cult people with the fake rifles and uniforms.
He got to know you are a poseur.
(heh)
—
Do you really not see how fucking obvious it is you can’t possibly dispute anything I say, so that you must resort to aping me in an attempt at mockery?
(Perhaps you are hoping nobody notices)
Tethys said at 42,
I would like to apologise for my fellow countrymen. Although I have occasionally taunted and made mockery in PZ’s comments I try nowadays to confine commenting to when I have something interesting and pointed to say on topic. In one of the comment threads over there, which had otherwise turned into a litany of uninteresting and pointless drivel, I found a plaintive query that had gone unnoticed and unanswered (well, except by John, of course, however it had obviously not been addressed to him):
I cannot answer as I don’t have the facts — but I certainly have an opinion. John’s always been a terrible pedant to the point where a good many commenters on this blog regarded him as no better than any of the trolls, but I think from my having known his writing style for many years, I think the balance of useful content and argument to be found in his comments on the one hand, to useless meta-commentary (and the endless habitual nitpicking) on the other, has shifted in recent times. And not for the better. I certainly don’t recall so many instances in the past where John would contribute say, five or six comments in a row (while no one else was commenting mind you!) without having anything substantive to say beyond stylistic meta-criticism that had progressively divorced itself from the subject of the original discussion. To say nothing of the discussion from that thread where the comment thread I just linked to, which after most of the other commenters give up (probably in frustration), literally becomes the John Morales show. It’s not very interesting. And rather pointless.
I really think you need to dial back the meta-commentary and concentrate on the substance.
To rehearse an old joke: there are two well-known signs of madness. The first is talking to yourself. The second is answering back.
The only thing I’m trying to do is read interesting commentary but alas, John’s persecution is the topic of multiple threads, and it’s everyone else fault for
not acknowledging his clear superiorityfinding him annoying.I’ve no interest whatsoever in discussing Russia beyond noting its ban on religion.
I know you mean well.
My sifu was truth machine.
(I now grok his technique)
—
Multiple points in one comment, well… pretty much ignored.
One point in multiple comments — hard to ignore.
—
You mean, when I respond to people (such as you right now) who comment either to or about me, I am being persecuted?
(Your own words, Tethys)
BTW:
A silly claim.
It was the USSR, not Russia.
(Ukraine was part of it. As was Poland. As were the other countries behind the Iron Curtain)
The USSR banning religion did not lead to tyranny and oppression, it was an act of tyranny and oppression aimed at removing a rival religion to marxism-leninism.
But the more interesting thing here is that Stalin later lifted said ban and the orthodox church came crawling back and kissing up to the godless communist heathen rulers which shows that organized religion will never miss a chance to hike itself to political power when given the chance, just like Christianity originally kissed-up to the Roman emperors and happily allowed themselves to be made into yet another pillar of power for the elites.
What makes Trump Christian? He was born rich, he conspired to become even more rich, shuns the poor, elevates himself over everyone else and preaches hatred of people weaker than him. What so many Christians like to forget is that this is exactly the kind of people Jesus said would be condemned to hell in the Sermon on the Mound. Which is why it always amused me when ol’ Jack Chick (May He Be Reincarnated as a Mosquito) used the “Go away from me, ye sinners” line for anyone but these people.
and
You’re both wrong, because in fact neither the USSR nor (of course) Russia ever banned religion. Certainly in the early period of Bolshevik rule much religious property was confiscated, religious activities were circumscribed, and religious believers were harassed. But there was never a ban on religion. Always worth checking before you rely on some supposed historical fact that fits neatly into a widespread ideology – whether religious or atheist, leftist, rightist or centrist.
Bekenstein Bound @56:
Wow. You should change your nym to The Condescending Atheist.
I appreciate the interesting commentary about Marxism.
I still have no interest in getting drawn into an argument over the history of Russia, or reading more of John’s obsessive need to pick fights and start off- topic arguments because he is bored.
Marx got his ideas about Communism from German Anabaptist settlers who had been invited to start farm colonies in Bessarabia under Catherine the Great. They are deeply religious, and were mostly expelled just before the Russian revolution.
Russians didn’t even do communism right. There was nothing communal about Soviet Russia.
From your citation, KG:
And this is where the distinction between Russia and the USSR matters:
Lots of different cultures and nationalities and ethnicities and so forth; it was an empire, not a country.
—
Tethys:
Not Russia; the USSR. Told you twice, already.
Also, you introduced Russia into the conversation.
It’s not you being drawn in, is it?
The logic of a spammer.
Rob Grigjanis@65:
That is not my intent. I hold no malice or contempt for them; I just view it as a form of immaturity, like still having a security blanket at 45 or similarly. Facing reality is hard. Most adults have foibles of some sort, often related to that in one way or another. Religious belief, when not forced on others or used to justify bigotry or etc., is one of the more harmless ways it can manifest; certainly preferable to, say, narcissism, a common defensive conceit from people unable to face not actually being the very best, or various kinds of denialism about COVID, or climate change, or war risks, or other uncomfortable realities.
You don’t know to what the term ‘spammer’ refers, do ya?
Heh.
(Nah. Your “logic”, BB)
No John, it was Russia. Imperial Russia turned into Soviet Russia, turned into Putinesque Russia, but the mindset has always been authoritarianism and brutality.
In any case, they stand as an example of what happens when the state tries to ban religion. In contrast, the USA decided to go with freedom of religion as a basic human right, which has definitely been a better option for society.
None of that is relevant to the topic, which is that it’s hard to fault X-tians when they actually follow the tenets of their faith to love thy neighbor, care for the poor, and uplift the oppressed.
No worries, Tethys.
First, it was: “I still have no interest in getting drawn into an argument over the history of Russia”
Now, it is: “No John, it was Russia. Imperial Russia turned into Soviet Russia, turned into Putinesque Russia, but the mindset has always been authoritarianism and brutality.”
—
“None of that is relevant to the topic, which is that it’s hard to fault X-tians when they actually follow the tenets of their faith to love thy neighbor, care for the poor, and uplift the oppressed.”
You brought up Russia. I pointed out those things to which you refer were actually from the USSR.
Anyway. Christians who practice what you imagine is the proper interpretation of the Babble?
(I’ve yet to meet one)
—
Besides, you should specify in what manner you think it’s hard to fault them.
I for sure fault their epistemology.
(Yes, even the fideists!)
I mean, even in the Babble Jesus was hardly Christian in that regard, was he?
John 12:
2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him.
3 Then Mary took a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.
4 Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son who was to betray Him, said,
5 “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?”
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money bag and took what was put therein.
7 Then Jesus said, “Let her alone; against the day of My burying hath she kept this.
8 For the poor always ye have with you, but Me ye have not always.”
(Heh)
@62. John Morales : “It was the USSR, not Russia. (Ukraine was part of it. As was Poland. As were the other countries behind the Iron Curtain)
Pedantic piece of Polish history but Poland wasn’t actually part of the USSR. It was a client / puppet regime, a member of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc but NOT one of the states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union ) Nor were all the other Eastern Bloc, Soviet Empire puppet dictatorships eg. Hungary, East Germany, what was then united as Yugoslavia, etc .. members of the USSR although some were eg. Moldova, Belarus, Turkmenistan, etc..
Ukraine OTOH, was one of those USSR members as were many now independent nations also including Stalin’s homeland Georgia (the central Asian one obvs!) Kazakhstan, the Baltic states that broke away from Russian control after Perestroika and glasnost policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika ) led to the collapse of the Soviet empire and the totalitarian One Party regime there.
Poland did then change from being a “People’s Republic “(yeah right! -ed.*) into the current Polish Republic.
PS. See also :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People%27s_Republic
I’ve met several Xtians who I consider to be almost disgustingly nice. I’m even related to some of them.
The church in the OP is fairly typical of Midwestern Lutherans. They actually do charitable work and promote inclusivity. I linked to their charitable organization back @42. It’s a stand alone nonprofit, rather than a religious charity.
There are large Hmong and Somali populations in Minnesota, which are the results of Lutheran Social Services efforts on behalf of refugees over the last 50 years.
Oh & compare & contrast with :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic
@72. John Morales : “I mean, even in the Babble Jesus was hardly Christian in that regard, was he?”
FWIW. I think there’s a pretty good case that Jesus himself wasn’t actually a “Christian” at all but rather the leader of a Messianaic Jewish sect. One of many in ancient Judea – then a puppet client kingom within the broader Roman empire run by King Herod but under Roman provincial rule as well. Sorta like Poland under the Soviet empire in the Cold War era.
It would be Paul, ex-Saul, and others who would later make Christianity a separate religion entirely rather than merely being one of many forms of Judaism if I grok things right.
StevoR,
Of course.
Jesus was a Jew. Matthew 5:18.
—
Maybe, just don’t try to slap them in the face and expect them to turn the other cheek.
And don’t expect them to give you more items of their clothing if you steal some.
I mean, nice people are nice and shitty people are shitty and most people are rather a mix.
Regardless of their ideology and such.
But, you know what? Here in Oz, back in the mid 70s (teenage years) I remember seeing the freebie “newspaper” (actually mostly local advertising) and its car ads — basically, cheap shit and second-hand shit.
Then the newspaper for the local Catholics which, well, advertised Jaguars and Mercedes-Benz and so forth.
(Yeah, I see all that shit)
It’s in every fucking crucifix in every Catholic church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus,_King_of_the_Jews
@ 77 Morales
So you’re saying there are good Samaritans? Congratulations on your original thought.
@ 78
Your link:
Silentbob:
You thought that was an original thought?
Heh.
I hardly think so.
Point being, it’s my thought, not what I’m supposed to think to be popular or acceptable or whatever.
You know.
Freethinking.
—
In passing, have you given any thought to the misnyming you applied to me and to which I told you at the time (what, more than three years ago now) I would reciprocate?
See, I didn’t misnyme you this time, to prove the point.
(Or, you can carry on using a nym handle I don’t use here, and I shall carry on reciprocating)
You are such an ignoramus!
Look at the inscriptions on every single fucking crucifix in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Everything hence from my link, O cherry-picker (sour, was that cherry):
“The initialism INRI represents the Latin inscription IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM (Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), which in English translates to “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews” (John 19:19).”
That’s the Catholic thingy. In every church. Historically.
“In Western Christianity, most crucifixes and many depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus include a plaque or parchment placed above his head, called a titulus, or title, bearing only the Latin letters INRI, occasionally carved directly into the cross and usually just above the head of Jesus. The initialism INRI (as opposed to the full inscription) was in use by the 10th century (Gero Cross, Cologne, ca. 970). ”
The other mob (since well, well before Protestantism or the Reformation):
“In Eastern Christianity, both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic particular churches sui iuris use the Greek letters ΙΝΒΙ, based on the Greek version of the inscription Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεύς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Some representations change the title to “ΙΝΒΚ,” ὁ βασιλεύς τοῦ κόσμου (ho Basileùs toû kósmou, “The King of the World”), or to ὁ βασιλεύς τῆς Δόξης (ho Basileùs tês Dóxēs, “The King of Glory”),[17][20] not implying that this was really what was written but reflecting the tradition that icons depict the spiritual reality rather than the physical reality.
The Romanian Orthodox Church uses INRI, since abbreviation in Romanian is exactly the same as in Latin (Iisus Nazarineanul Regele Iudeilor). ”
—
You are so very, very funny when you attempt to dispute me on matters of fact, or of logic, or of canon.
(Never ever have you had any success, have ya, Bob?)
Heh.
Seriously, Bob.
Go to a Catholic church, whenever you care to.
Look at the crucifix.
You will see it.
(Historical, it is)
Think about what you wrote, Bob.
Think about its very insipidity, its evident lack of understanding the concepts at hand.
Yes. By those who are not Jewish.
cf. my #77, the significance of which clearly eluded you, Bob.
By Christians, who are not Jewish.
I mean, it’s the New Testament, right?
The one that claims a new Covenant, though it specifically quotes Jesus as not one titting (titter!) from the Law.
—
(Sometimes, people such as you need the odd 2×4, Bob)
No they don’t, because they didn’t. And “Soviet Russia” generally refers to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which was one of the constituent republics of the USSR.
Congrats KG, you too can quibble about terminology and pretend that Russia didn’t create the dictatorship known as the USSR after they brutally murdered the Czar and his children.
Worst revolution ever.
@ ^ Tethys : Sadly there’s a lot of candidates for that “Worst Revolution ever” “winner.”
Pol Pot’s one In Cambodia?
The Iranian one with its Ayatollahs – how different would they world be now if the Shah had stayed in charge and Persian remained pro-western?
The Chinese Maoist one which has led to its authoritarian rule and famine and cultural destruction and genocide?
The French reign of terror with the guillotines and mass bloodshed and horror?
Uganda’s one with Idi Amin put incharge, Libya’s Gaddafi’s revolution in Libya?
Too many to choose from really.
In terms of our pale blue dot, our shared planetary home there’s actually a pretty good case for the very worst Revolution of all being the Industrial one maybe?
At the opposite extreme, gotta say, the Sexual Revolution would have to be the best one.. right?
Bekenstein Bound @68:
Right. So there are all those billions of people out there. You know absolutely nothing about the lived experiences of the vast majority of them, or how they perceive their own lives’ trajectories. But if one of them simply says “I am a theist”, all of a sudden you can diagnose their “problem” as being immaturity. And that’s because your own trajectory included becoming an atheist. How can anyone end up not being like you, unless there is something wrong with them? Charming.
It’s OK. There are many atheists who conclude that theists are simply intellectually lazy, again, without knowing anything about them except for their theism.
Not sure which of those views is more gratuitously insulting.
Not necessarily something wrong with them. Perhaps with the society around them — with nearly all of the societies on Earth right now. It didn’t used to be this way (cf. The Dawn of Everything) but in the present rote learning (and usually, along with that, some form of religion) is strongly encouraged over thinking for one’s self, and facing up to reality is mostly not taught.
Tethys@84,
I did not, of course, pretend anything of the kind. When you get something factually wrong, as you did (the USSR never banned religion), the best thing to do is acknowledge it. If you want to be adult about it, you could even thank the person who points out your mistake. The thing not to do, if you want to be taken seriously, is to make false accusations against that person.