• eduardog3000 [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    The main problem is the literal texts of those religions (well, Abrahamic religions at least, I don't know much about others) is pretty in opposition to leftist beliefs. Yeah you can be a religious leftist, but you have to ignore half of your holy book or more.

    I do think something like liberation theology is the only way you could have leftism in America, especially the South. But the contradictions need to be grappled with.

    • Gaysexdotcom [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      you're gonna find about 10 people on earth who follow the literal texts of their scripture to a t. The abrahamic religions all have pretty good stuff about sharing wealth, its a great basis

    • JuneFall [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Perfect! I ignore half of Capital also, that means we already got a lot in common.

    • sam5673 [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      The text was written in the early iron age for an early iron age audience, the cultural context they were living in is going to bleed through to how the interact with God

    • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I mean those texts are compendiums edited and curated over the course of 3 millennia. If those rando editors can ignore wholesale entire works I don't see why it's inconsistent for anyone else to.

      • eduardog3000 [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        Because those edits happened at least a millennium ago, and not many people were actually able to read the books or know changes were made at that time anyway.

        Besides what could be snuck in through "mistranslations", the overall content of the Abrahamic books are pretty set in stone at this point. Good luck convincing billions of people to accept a version of the "Word of God" that was revised in their lifetime to remove whole swaths of text.

        Of course most people just ignore vast parts of their books (most of whom haven't even read those parts), but those parts are still there, still considered part of the holy text, and therefore form contradictions that allow reactionaries to point to them and say we should be following them.

        • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Besides what could be snuck in through “mistranslations”, the overall content of the Abrahamic books are pretty set in stone at this point.

          There were entire insertions centuries after the fact. Jesus and the adulterer? Totally made up and added. , it seems.

          Good luck convincing billions of people to accept a version of the “Word of God” that was revised in their lifetime to remove whole swaths of text.

          I mean that has happened on the scale of millions. CoJCoLDS revelation is a tangled mess of evolving self-contradictions that the membership just go along with when they have good reason to. It's just a matter of giving people a good reason to that resonates with them.

          Besides, no one here is advocating for a wholesale restorationism movement of leftist religion like you seem to be implying. I'm just pointing out that a person can absolutely yeet Paul's thoughts on women in the ministry and still consider themselves a Christian and that's neither cheating or a hack.