this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
868 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
8305 readers
2820 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
ITT People who think they understand Christian doctrine well enough to critique Christians
Jesus wasn't a communist. Sorry folks.
I don’t think you quite grasp what Christian dogma actually is, and you’re doing a stellar job of proving it by passing judgment. Funny thing: the people most qualified to critique a system are usually the ones not inside it. Remember when the church opposed the printing press because they were worried people might start reading the Bible for themselves and realize the clergy were editorializing? Turns out they were only half-wrong. Most folks still haven’t read it, and judging by takes like yours, they definitely don’t understand what Jesus actually taught.
Funny thing: the people most qualified to critique a system are usually the ones not inside it.
The only thing funny about that is that it's a baseless assertion.
Remember when the church opposed the printing press because they were worried people might start reading the Bible for themselves and realize the clergy were editorializing
The early church produced the canon of scripture we now know as the Bible. (E.g. It is literally the editor) What the Church was worried about is people getting Bibles and thinking they can figure it all out without the tradition of the Church. 40,000 Protestant denominations later it's pretty clear their fears were well founded. This is why Joe Jimbob's McChurch USA is playing with snakes instead of attending liturgy, participating in the sacraments and living the liturgical life of the church. It's why ahistorical low-church Protestants are proto-atheists.
what Jesus actually taught
It will be very interesting to hear your opinion on what Jesus taught considering you're entirely reliant on a canon of scripture assembled by a church you do not trust.
The only baseless assertions I'm seeing in thread are coming from you.
The first, drawn from your replies, seems to be that only those inside a belief system are qualified to critique it. I’d love to hear the logic behind that. Are we only allowed to analyze something if we’ve taken a loyalty oath? Do I need to be a card-carrying member of "Joe Jimbob’s McChurch USA" to point out inconsistencies in religious practice? And even then, would I only be allowed to critique that church, and not the broader system it's derived from?
The clergy, across all denominations, has historically used the Bible as a tool of control. The sheer number of splintered sects is testament to the unlikeliness of divine clarity and more a case study in cultural evolution. Or is pointing that out off-limits to outsiders, too?
Which brings me to your next claim: that my understanding of Jesus must’ve come from some specific church’s Bible. That’s a bit of erog propter hoc, putting DeCartes before the horse. One doesn’t need to be religious to find value in religious teachings. Christ’s egalitarianism doesn’t require Sunday attendance to appreciate. And you certainly don’t have to be a capitalist to notice the glaring contradictions in the modern Christian zeitgeist.
Are we only allowed to analyze something if we’ve taken a loyalty oath?
I never subscribed to the binary view that you have. I think analytical minds can critique their own system as well as others.
Do I need to be a card-carrying member of "Joe Jimbob’s McChurch USA" to point out inconsistencies in religious practice? And even then, would I only be allowed to critique that church, and not the broader system it's derived from?
I'm putting no such constraints on your ability to attempt a critique I just have my sincere doubts about you providing a coherent internal critique given your presuppositions.
The clergy, across all denominations, has historically used the Bible as a tool of control. The sheer number of splintered sects is testament to the unlikeliness of divine clarity and more a case study in cultural evolution. Or is pointing that out off-limits to outsiders, too?
Splintered sects are evidence of nothing other than humanity's limitless capacity for ignorance and disobedience. When you examine church history it's clear that since the schism of 1054 the Western Tradition continues to fragment further and further while the East is monolithic in comparison. Schism begets schism.
Which brings me to your next claim: that my understanding of Jesus must’ve come from some specific church’s Bible.
From a religious perspective saying one doesn't conform to any given church's interpretation of scripture is no different than founding a new schismatic denomination with a congregation of 1. (e.g. you are your own Pope)
From a secular perspective who cares because it means you don't believe Christ is Risen and are arbitrarily picking and choosing what you like and don't like without submitting to the totality of doctrine.
Christ’s egalitarianism doesn’t require Sunday attendance to appreciate.
It does if you want to interpret and experience Christ's teachings the way the apostles intended.
And you certainly don’t have to be a capitalist to notice the glaring contradictions in the modern Christian zeitgeist.
Most modern self-professing Christians in the West derive from the schismatic traditions I was talking about and are only Christian in some vague cultural sense.
Also Christ instructed us to love all people but he gave his apostles authority at Pentecost so it's natural that control is a part of the way the Church functions. Christianity is not a democracy.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism. You’ve brought the receipts straight from Proverbs 3:5; a.k.a. “don’t think too hard about it,”. The church cheerfully instructs us to toss out reason the moment it gets inconvenient. Submit to God, submit to the church, submit to authority, don’t ask questions and just nod along.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I'm not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world's various holy books.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
While our back-and-forth may seem combative, I appreciate your openness to discussion, and thank you for spending the time to help me better understand your perspective.
Edit: adding that I agree with you that Jesus was not a communist, as communism as a term was not coined until the 19th century.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism.
So what? You submit to God not the other way around. A shepherd doesn't ask his sheep for a vote.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I'm not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world's various holy books.
Yeah you're missing the tradition of the church which precedes scripture and explains everything you think is inconsistent. You mistakenly think you're not blinded like us zealot lemmings when in reality you're functioning with incomplete information from a sola scriptural paradigm that didn't emerge until only 500 years ago.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
"My perspective" reflects the view of all Christians until the schism and, frankly, until the Protestant reformation. You are viewing an ancient religion with a post-modern lens. There was no such thing as "ecumenism" or "invisible church" in the first thousand years of Christianity. You were either in the Church or outside of the Church and there were fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity that everyone had to believe or be excommunicated.
Even the idea that someone living in the roman empire could be a communist is ridiculous.
The word "Communism" wasn't coined until the 1800s, so technically there would have been zero communists in ancient Rome. That doesn't mean that the concepts weren't around; broadly speaking, egalitarian socialism has been a precept of many societies and religions for millennia.
Because communism as a concept was created in the 19th century by Karl Marx. There can't be any communists before that because how could you even be a follower of an idea/ideology/concept before it was inventet? There also can't be any christians before Jesus lived or Buddhists before Buddah
When people say "communism" they mean the principles of communal ownership and shared property. Not the specific philosophy of Karl Marx (that would be Marxism).
It is possible for someone to hold those ideal, and even live by them, before the term is coined.
If christianity had ideals other than "live like jesus", it would be possible to follow those before he existed too.
I think it makes sense to use the correct words, esp. if you're using loaded words like communism or fascism. So the early christians (and many before and afterwards) were trying for a spiritual and communal life in a small group of believers. Like monks do. But that is not what most people are thinking when they are talking about communism.
Do you not think a community where each provides as his ability to everyone as is his need is communism? It certainly sounds like it to me.
At least the deal, if not what had been observed. It seems ridiculous to me to insist a thing cannot exist before it has been described by someone. Retro-actively we can classify a philosophy by how it's ppopinents insisted people behave.
Reads the part where Jesus flips the tables on the money lenders.
"No ... no ... not that part, we love money and need to elect all the greedy billionaires."
Reads the part about a certain golden calf.
"OH! Good idea, let's make a gold statue of Trump. Also a weird fucking golden goat with money glued onto it. Totally not cultists. Totally Christian."
John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
When was the last time you encountered a Christian who was a disciple of Christ? The only ones I know don't call themselves Christian anymore.
Last Sunday
I worked in churches for over 15 years, and during that time, I met many kind, well-intentioned people. But what I often ran into—and what eventually wore me down—was the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the behavior of many who claimed to follow Him.
The command to “love one another” wasn’t just a suggestion. It was supposed to be the defining mark of discipleship. But instead, I saw love regularly take a backseat to doctrine, tribal loyalty, and personal comfort. When challenged, many defaulted to talking points instead of compassion. They could quote scripture fluently but seemed unable—or unwilling—to embody it, especially when it required real humility or sacrifice.
What was most painful was the hypocrisy: preaching grace but practicing judgment, offering community but withholding inclusion, speaking of Jesus while acting more like the Pharisees He opposed. And often, faith became a shield—not to protect the vulnerable, but to protect egos from the hard work of self-examination. It blinded people to their own contradictions. They believed they were living rightly, when in truth they were often just defending their culture, not their Christ.
So yes, I hope your experience is different. Truly. Because for many of us who once lived and breathed church life, the gap between Jesus and those who speak in His name grew too wide to ignore. That’s why I and some of the most authentic followers of Christ I’ve known don’t call themselves Christians anymore. Our Christian values won't allow it.
I understand where you're coming from and the pain it can cause.
PK here. Agnostic Atheist these days. Extremely anti-fundamentlist Christianity. Ultimately, I don't need the stress, guilt, and strife in my life.
I hate what is done to children by the evangelical Protestants, these organizations are evil.
I prefer the Bill and Tedism, "Be excellent unto one another."
My girl is a Christian, she had a lax-Catholic upbringing.
To sum up my spiritual views at this point. If there is a god, she can judge me when I'm dead and I'll have questions about cancer babies. I'm done worrying about it or trying to figure it out. I'm going to take care of my people and be good to others.
That’s why I and some of the most authentic followers of Christ I’ve known don’t call themselves Christians anymore. Our Christian values won't allow it.
That was an awfully long story just to say you're prideful at the end.
You’ve spoken fifteen words to me. And here’s what they’ve told me:
You went to a Christian church last Sunday. You believe I wasted your time with a “long-winded” explanation. And you accuse me of pride.
If you wish to defend yourself as a disciple of Christ, then tell me: Which of the 1 Corinthians 13 attributes of love have you shown me so far? Patience? Kindness? Have you honored me?
Because I can’t point to a single thing that resembles love. No curiosity. No grace. No questions. Just a dismissal, a judgment, and a label.
So let’s talk about pride.
Was it pride that compelled Jesus to overturn tables in the temple courts? Was it pride that moved Him to confront the Pharisees, the respected religious leaders of His day, for their hypocrisy, their arrogance, their empty performance of righteousness? Was it pride that led Him to say, “You honor me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me”?
Or was it love? A love so fierce, so holy, that it refused to be silent in the face of corrupted religion. A love that demanded truth, even when it cost Him everything.
What I shared with you didn’t come from pride. It came from grief. From years inside the Church, serving, loving, and ultimately mourning how far we’ve drifted from the heart of Jesus.
Pride would have stayed silent. Love compelled me to speak.
If you want to continue the conversation, I’m here and I would welcome it. But if you want to show yourself a disciple of Christ, then let your words be grounded in truth, wrapped in love, and spoken with a willingness to listen. Anything less isn’t worth the breath.
Was it pride that moved Him to confront the Pharisees, the respected religious leaders of His day, for their hypocrisy, their arrogance, their empty performance of righteousness?
empty performance of righteousness
Like your entire post? You know when you read the Bible you're supposed to see yourself in the bad guy of every parable right? You're not an "authentic" follower of Christ. You are suffering from severe prelest. You're literally a sinner and should be begging God for mercy and praying daily for all the people you disparaged earlier.
Try pulling the log out of your own eye before talking about the speck in your brothers.
Also if you're a follower of Christ you have to go to Church. It's not optional. Your antisocial musings about your "authenticity" are a clear sign of somebody who is out of orbit and believing their own BS.
Manmoth, I have done this long enough to know when someone isn't interested in genuine conversation.
To everyone else reading this exchange: this is exactly what I was talking about.
I shared a deeply personal experience about the gap between Christ's teachings and the behavior of many who claim to follow Him. And this was the response:
Dismissal. Accusations of delusion. Demands for repentance. Theological gatekeeping. No curiosity about my journey. No questions about what I saw or experienced. No willingness to consider that someone might leave the church for reasons worth examining.
Instead, I was told: "You're deluded. You're prideful. You're antisocial. You must go to church."
This is the pattern many of us have encountered. When we raise concerns about the church's witness, we aren't met with reflection or dialogue. We're met with accusation and calls for submission. The response isn't, "Help me understand what went wrong," but, "You are the problem."
Notice what happens: Scripture becomes a weapon instead of a balm. Theology becomes a wall instead of a bridge. And the conversation becomes about control, not compassion.
And this is precisely why I can no longer bear the name Christian myself. Because this, this dismissal, this judgment, this refusal to engage with genuine spiritual struggle, is what that name has come to represent. Manmoth isn't an outlier. This response is the norm. This is Christianity as most people experience it.
For those of you reading this who've had similar experiences, you're not crazy. You're not alone. Your concerns about the gap between Jesus and Christian culture are valid. And the fact that raising them often provokes exactly this kind of response… should tell you something.
To those in the church who genuinely want to understand why people are walking away, this exchange is a case study. The ones leaving aren't always rebellious or prideful. Sometimes, they're the ones who took Jesus's words about love and integrity so seriously that they couldn't ignore the contradiction between His call and what they saw happening in His name.
I'm not swayed by your moral posturing and stand by everything I said.
I shared a deeply personal experience about the gap between Christ's teachings and the behavior of many who claim to follow Him.
"I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first."
Unless your deeply personal experience about the gap between behavior and Christ's teachings starts with yourself then you are just being a Pharisee.
Dismissal. Accusations of delusion. Demands for repentance. Theological gatekeeping. No curiosity about my journey. No questions about what I saw or experienced. No willingness to consider that someone might leave the church for reasons worth examining.
News flash. Christianity isn't about what works for you. It's about repentance and submission to God. You CAN be wrong and there is a REAL church and fundamental theology that cannot be dismissed.
If you're leaving a church because the people there are "bad Christians" then you should look at yourself in the mirror because -- guess what -- we're all bad Christians. The worst ones think they are the best.
No matter how "good" of a Christian you think you are you will always fall short and be a sinner.
This is the pattern many of us have encountered. When we raise concerns about the church's witness, we aren't met with reflection or dialogue. We're met with accusation and calls for submission. The response isn't, "Help me understand what went wrong," but, "You are the problem."
The Bible is literally a book telling you that you are a fallen, spiritually sick creature that despite this fact is made in the Image of God and can be saved. In short, you ARE the problem. If you don't understand that then you've missed the entire point. Submitting to God is actually the best, most healing thing for yourself because only then will you cooperate with the Holy Spirit and begin the process of spiritual healing.
Instead, I was told: "You're deluded. You're prideful. You're antisocial. You must go to church."
Notice what happens: Scripture becomes a weapon instead of a balm. Theology becomes a wall instead of a bridge. And the conversation becomes about control, not compassion.
Exactly. You are using Scripture to keep dominion over yourself instead of submitting to God and living in accordance with the doctrine of the Church. You are building a wall to separate yourself from the body of Christ.
And this is precisely why I can no longer bear the name Christian myself. Because this, this dismissal, this judgment, this refusal to engage with genuine spiritual struggle, is what that name has come to represent. Manmoth isn't an outlier. This response is the norm. This is Christianity as most people experience it.
I'm not morally posturing or softening my language I'm giving you real Christian advice. Go to church, repent, participate in the sacraments and engage in fellowship with your struggling brothers and sisters in Christ. Your "story" doesn't matter because Christianity isn't about you. It's about prayer, fasting and almsgiving. It's about being a functioning member of the body of Christ and cooperating with the Holy Spirit.
If you're upset because you're not getting the response you want then maybe you want the wrong response.
To those in the church who genuinely want to understand why people are walking away, this exchange is a case study. The ones leaving aren't always rebellious or prideful. Sometimes, they're the ones who took Jesus's words about love and integrity so seriously that they couldn't ignore the contradiction between His call and what they saw happening in His name.
The Church (Eastern Orthodoxy) is eternal. You are always welcome but it is up to you to take your seat at the wedding feast. Any church that bends to the arbitrary demands of modernity isn't a real church. At best it's a community with a vibe.
First of all, I want to thank you for engaging with me. You have definitely given more thought to your position than your initial replies. I dismissed you as someone not willing to actually engage based on those short responses, but this last reply had depth and effort. I truly appreciate and respect the effort.
You've made your position very clear: submission, sacraments, and Church are non-negotiables in your view of faith. I understand that, and I even understand where it comes from. The tradition you're drawing from is ancient, rigorous, and unapologetically structured.
But what's missing here, and what is truly heartbreaking, is any sign of compassion for another person's spiritual wounds.
I didn’t come here to tear down faith. I came because I loved the Church. I gave it years of my life, my energy, and my care. I spent six years in formal religious study. I learned Greek and Hebrew so I could seek truth and teach it faithfully. I led weekly studies for fifteen years, speaking to literally thousands of people who longed to know Christ. I watched marriages fall apart. I watched people suffer in silence. I watched young hearts burn out trying to earn a love they were told was unconditional.
And I served right in the middle of all of it. My entire life’s work has been Christ.
So when I speak of grief, I speak from the inside. This isn’t theory to me. It’s memory. It’s life.
Your response hasn’t engaged with any of that. You haven’t asked a single question. You haven’t tried to understand. You’ve quoted doctrine and offered correction without even pausing to wonder who you’re speaking to. You assume I left because I didn’t want to submit, when in truth, I stayed far longer than was good for me because I wanted to be faithful.
The Church you speak of, and the God you seem to represent, appear interested only in obedience and conformity. But the Jesus I encountered in Scripture? He wept with the broken. He dined with the outcast. He challenged the religious elite. He called people not to power, but to love.
So here’s my sincere question for you:
If someone came to you and shared that the Church had wounded them, not once, but persistently and they did so with humility and pain in their voice, how would Jesus respond?
Would He accuse them?
Would He quote doctrine?
Would He tell them their experience doesn’t matter?
Or would He listen?
Because that’s really what this comes down to. Not whether I agree with every line of theology. Not whether I tick every box of orthodoxy. But whether those who bear the name of Christ actually reflect His posture when someone is bleeding spiritually.
I have no expectations here, but I'll leave you with one final question for you to ask yourself and sit with:
Am I Christlike?
You’ve made your position very clear: submission, sacraments, and Church are non-negotiables in your view of faith.
It's THE view of the early church fathers ergo it's real Christianity. Adherence to the structure of the church isn't blind submission it is a union of the body in trust and love. The sacraments given to the Church by Christ are key to spiritual healing and union with God. (Which is what you're on about by the way)
But what’s missing here, and what is truly heartbreaking, is any sign of compassion for another person’s spiritual wounds.
Clarity is a form of compassion. I don't mince words especially on Lemmy where Christianity is all but spat upon. My comments are clear, concise and uncomfortably direct on purpose. No matter what you have gone through you will never heal heal on your own. Period. When you go to church you will find people that will relate to your struggles and a confessor who will hear your sins and offer spiritual guidance. You will not and should not expect to find this on Lemmy. There is no substitute for the Church.
Your response hasn’t engaged with any of that. You haven’t asked a single question. You haven’t tried to understand. You’ve quoted doctrine and offered correction without even pausing to wonder who you’re speaking to.
That's not what Lemmy is for. I didn't offer you that courtesy because you shouldn't bear your soul online to strangers. You should do that with your brothers and sisters in Christ. Preferably far away from electronics during coffee hour or something. You DO need a group of people that have a sound theology and doctrinal awareness so that you can trust their advice and earnestness. You could even befriend them and know that the new person in your life is well-intentioned and seeks Christ as you should.
The Church you speak of, and the God you seem to represent, appear interested only in obedience and conformity.
Orthodoxy sees obedience as union, not conformity. It’s about becoming one with Christ, not passing a test. Christ did dine with the outcast, but He also told them, “Go and sin no more.” He loved without condition—but He also called to repentance. Both truths walk together. One without the other isn’t love—it’s sentimentality or legalism.
But the Jesus I encountered in Scripture? He wept with the broken. He dined with the outcast. He challenged the religious elite. He called people not to power, but to love.
He also chastised them, challenged them and told them to pick up their cross and follow him.
If someone came to you and shared that the Church had wounded them, not once, but persistently and they did so with humility and pain in their voice, how would Jesus respond? Would He accuse them? Would He quote doctrine? Would He tell them their experience doesn’t matter? Or would He listen?
I can't speak for Christ but I assume he would listen, for a time. He has the advantage of truly knowing your heart. He would ultimately call you to repent and follow him though. Your suffering and heartbreak, your "story" is only important insofar as it leads you to Christ.
Because that’s really what this comes down to. Not whether I agree with every line of theology. Not whether I tick every box of orthodoxy. But whether those who bear the name of Christ actually reflect His posture when someone is bleeding spiritually
Without knowing you better than what I've read so far my inclination is not to engage with your call to bear witness. I do not think it would be helpful. This is the wrong place. By now you know where you should go to resolve such things. Christ is not monochromatic and the truth is the truth. You are excommunicating yourself from the body of Christ and are putting yourself in spiritual peril. Do with that what you will. I care far more about you going to church to find spiritual healing than I do about piety signalling with some phony affectation.
Am I Christlike?
I have no idea of the content of your heart. This is a question only God can answer.
If I were to assess myself I'd say 'No'. I'm a selfish and indulgent sinner who daily disobeys God and pursues my own passions.
I will add you to my prayers.
Alright, I want to say this first: I appreciate that you’ve stayed in this conversation. I really do. I can tell you care, that you take your tradition seriously, and that you’re trying to offer what you believe is truth. That matters to me. I'm going to speak just as plainly as you do, because I think you can handle it.
You keep pointing to your sin like it’s some badge of spiritual maturity. But Christ didn’t die so you could stay tethered to your brokenness. He died so you could actually change. He didn’t offer you a mirror just to say, “Yep, still filthy,” but to cleanse you and fill you with His Spirit so that His love becomes what people experience when they encounter you.
You speak of repentance as if it’s the destination. It’s not. It’s the doorway.
You talk about church as the only hospital, but then point to sacraments and tradition as the required price of admission. You keep reducing the gospel to obedience, when the whole point of transformation was not through your obedience, but His. You are like Christ because of Christ.
And if Christ in you and through you is the goal, then look at how He loved. He confronted religious pride. He broke bread with doubters. He listened before correcting. He touched wounds before calling people to sin no more.
Right now, your version of Christianity seems to say, “You’re disgusting. Come to church.”
But the gospel contradicts that directly with, “You are deeply loved. You have been made whole.”
Your sin isn’t the problem. If the work of the Cross is actually finished, your sin is not your problem. It was Christ’s.
What I see in you is a refusal to believe you can actually live differently. That Christ can actually live through you. That His Spirit doesn’t just forgive, it transforms.
You want me to come back to church? Then show me what church people look like when they truly believe they’ve been made new.
You say Christianity isn’t about me. But Jesus didn’t die to protect institutions. He died for people. For their hearts. For their healing. For their wholeness. That is the good news.
So I’ll keep talking to strangers here, or anywhere else I can connect with people. I’ll keep telling my story. I will bring the Church to them. Because someone out there needs to hear that there is nothing to be ashamed of anymore. Love defeated shame. Love defeated doctrine-as-a-weapon. Love is the good news we share through our words and our actions.
And since you speak often of repentance and obedience, I’ll offer this to you in your own language:
If the Church is a hospital, as you say, then what do you do when the wounded are afraid to walk through the doors, not because they reject healing, but because the people inside keep reopening their wounds?
Is it not a kind of spiritual malpractice to demand repentance from the hurting without first washing their feet?
You’re right, Christ calls us to die to ourselves. But if that death doesn’t make us more gentle, more approachable, more like a refuge for the broken, what exactly is dying in us? And what’s still holding on?
And one more thing. You seem to have misread my last question. It wasn’t for me.
It was for you.
Are you Christlike?
Not in your theology. Not in your discipline. Not in your sacraments or church attendance.
When people think of you, do they think of love?
Love in your tone. Love in your compassion.
Love in how you treat even a stranger—not just on some internet platform, but everywhere.
Because as Jesus said, that is how they will know you are His disciple.
absolute shithead
Post history, full of more shit
.ml user. Coincidence?
I know. I took a look before I responded. I had a sense of who I was dealing with. I decided to extend an olive branch, but I wasn’t surprised by what I got in return. At this point, I'm mostly replying for the sake of others who might be reading the thread.
If I had to venture a guess, that poster is just another .ml poster clocked in for another shift at the local troll-farm. May not even be a real person...
Plenty of real people who act like that out of their own volition. Still not worth wasting keypresses on.
view more: next ›