pull down to refresh

The faith incarnated by a persecuted, dark-skinned Jewish Rabbi named Yeshua—meaning “God saves”—executed by an empire, has been transformed into a religion that legitimizes Western supremacy, imperial power, and the very structures of domination that killed Him.
The English word “moral” comes from Latin mōrālis, from mōrēs—customs, manners, proper behavior.
The word originally meant how one ought to act within a community, shaped by social customs.
Understanding this shift explains how Christianity became the opposite of what it started as.

Two Different Languages

Roman senator Cicero coined mōrālis to translate Greek ēthikos. These frameworks were designed to work within existing power structures. Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great. The Stoics taught people how to be virtuous as Roman citizens and senators.
Roman virtue meant civic duty—how to conduct business honorably, how to serve the state. Even when criticizing bad rulers, Roman thinkers aimed to fix the system, not overthrow it.
These were ethics for making empire work better.
Biblical language works differently:
  • Righteousness (tsedeq): Alignment with God’s justice, not cultural customs
  • Holiness (qodesh): Being “set apart”—different from surrounding culture
  • Justice (mishpat): Economic and social righteousness, protecting the vulnerable
The Hebrew prophets confronted entire systems:
“They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor.” (Amos)
“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to deprive the poor of their rights.” (Isaiah)
Yeshua continued this, condemning religious leaders who “devour widows’ houses” while maintaining religious appearances.
This isn’t reform. This is confrontation.

What Christianity Started As

First-century followers of Yeshua didn’t try to be good citizens of Rome. They created an alternative to Rome.
They shared everything: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.”
They challenged social hierarchies: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female”—even while navigating existing structures.
They refused to worship Caesar. When ordered to say “Caesar is Lord,” they said, “Jesus is Lord”—an act of treason.
Persecution was real, though sporadic. Nero used Christians as human torches. Some were thrown to animals. Being Christian often meant standing against empire, sometimes to the death.
Then came Constantine.

The Imperial Takeover

Year 313: Constantine’s Edict of Milan legalized Christianity.
Before a battle, Constantine claimed to see a cross with the words “In this sign, conquer.” He won. The cross became a symbol of military victory.
By 380, Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official state religion. Christianity became wealthy, institutionalized, and entangled with imperial power.
But something deeper happened in Christian scholarship.
Church fathers synthesized biblical faith with Greek philosophy.
Augustine absorbed Plato, Stoic natural law, Cicero’s four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude), and Aristotelian ethics. He “Christianized” these ideas.
Augustine still critiqued Rome—calling unjust empires “robber bands.” He transformed classical ethics with his emphasis on grace and divine love.
But the vocabulary he adopted opened a dangerous door:
When Christianity embraced Greco-Roman ethical language—designed to help empires function justly—it became easier to let “virtue” and “moral order” defend the status quo rather than challenge it.
Yeshua taught radical economic trust (don’t worry about tomorrow), enemy love (turn the other cheek), and nonviolent resistance to the point of crucifixion.
Over time, the church used “moral” language to defend power instead of confronting it.
The vocabulary was just a tool. But political incentives—wealth, status, imperial favor—drove how that tool got used.

The Pattern Repeats

The Crusades: “God wills it!” Muslims and Jews slaughtered in Christ’s name.
The Inquisition: Heretics tortured and burned. Yeshua, who refused to call down fire on unbelievers, invoked to justify burning them alive.
Conquest of the Americas: Catastrophic population collapse through violence, exploitation, forced labor, and disease—theologically justified as bringing Christian “civilization.”
The Slave Trade: African people enslaved with explicit theological justification. Churches owned slaves.
Apartheid: Racial segregation justified as divinely ordained.
Each atrocity wrapped in biblical language.
Prophetic voices never disappeared—Francis of Assisi, Bartolomé de las Casas, abolitionists, civil rights leaders kept the tradition alive.
But the dominant stream became blessing power instead of confronting it.

What “Moral” Means Now

Yeshua condemned selective morality:
“You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters—justice, mercy and faithfulness.”
Religious leaders tithed herbs while “devouring widows’ houses.”
Much of contemporary Christianity does the same.
Obsesses over sexual ethics while downplaying economic injustice.
Demands religious liberty for Christians while indifferent toward Muslims and immigrants.
Preaches sanctity of life regarding abortion while supporting policies that increase maternal mortality or perpetuate poverty.
Claims biblical authority while ignoring biblical commands about wealth, foreigners, enemies, and the poor.
This isn’t universal. Catholic social teaching advocates for workers and the poor. Progressive evangelicals prioritize justice. Liberation theology centers the oppressed.
But in much of American evangelical culture, selective morality dominates.

The Shift Complete

In much of Western Christianity today, “morality” means:
Conforming to established order.
Proper behavior within the system.
Virtue that serves power rather than challenges it.
Athens shaped Jerusalem. Empire wears a cross.
What began as qodesh—holiness, prophetic disruption—became mōrēs—conformity to cultural customs.
What began as tsedeq—righteousness inseparable from justice—became moralis—proper behavior within power structures.
What began as a crucified Prophet executed for opposing empire became an institution blessing empire.
When Christianity adopted Greco-Roman moral vocabulary, the words themselves didn’t doom the faith.
But the vocabulary made rationalization easier. It became more natural to hold power while claiming to follow a crucified God.
The choices happened over centuries—made by people who found it easier to baptize the status quo than challenge it. Political incentives drove the transformation: wealth, status, imperial favor.
When “moral” came to mean maintaining order instead of disrupting it, Christianity lost something essential.
It lost the Prophet.
And that is how we got here.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
You have some interesting views on Christianity. True in many ways, but in other ways that I feel are unbalanced or unfairly critical to modern Christians. I wonder, are you a member of any church or denomination?
reply
Yes, I'm part of a church community. My views are my own, though, grounded in Scripture and informed by what I see unfolding in Western Christianity today.
reply
Do your critiques apply to your own church community, or do you think it applies more to those outside your community?
reply
Yes, within my own community, first, and outside it as well.
reply
I can get behind this.
Christ made the greatest sacrifice (work), on the highest hill (proof), as the lowest man (inclusivity), alone (sovereignty). Christ taught us to play the game such that we don't corrupt it, and contribute to its decay, entropy, even at the expense of our own interests. Satoshi taught us to design the game such that it is not as susceptible to entropy, regardless of the strategies of the players.
The Roman Empire had to respond to Christianity as it was adopted by slaves and the working class, and then parts of the literate upper class elite who wrote the gospels. Their solution to a civilization which became dominated by non-violent revolution was hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the governing principle of the West, a Christian skin suit that serves to uphold everything that Christianity is not. Thus Christianity was sanctioned by the empire, and it became easy, even mandatory, so everyone called themselves Christians, even baptising their children before they could speak the name of Christ. Christianity became just another form of identitarianism, exactly what it Christ lived and died to oppose.
As Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, the parable of Christ returning during the Spanish Inquisition, and how they imprisoned Him knowing full well that He was Christ, on the justification that they needed to protect the people from Him and the burden that he placed upon them.
So when Christ really returned it has to be under a pseudonym, giving us the gift again in a mode that is unrecognisable from His first life.
reply
Appreciate this framing, especially the contrast between prophetic truth and empire-maintained hypocrisy. Just to be clear: I don’t believe Satoshi was Christ; at most, Bitcoin echoes some anti-imperial principles in how systems can resist corruption. The Gospel stands on its own, and my argument is about how power co-opts faith, not about replacing Christ.
reply
What part of my comment suggested that Satoshi replaced Christ?
They literally had exactly the same idea, which to us is transmitted via the story of the crucifixion and the monomyth. The pillars of that story are the objective rules that govern society, which you can label for shorthand as:
  • challenge
  • truth
  • care
  • responsibility
The only way for Christ to propagate and transmit these rules in a pre-literature pre-modern society was too embody them, to face the greatest challenge, in public, with the criminals as an everyman, alone.
That is the bedrock of what makes Christianity, the core idea without which everything else is a mere open of some bloke in antiquity. We know that now because we have seen we an equally obscure individual can do with the same rules, the instantiation of proof of work to create the ideal monetary system.
reply
We agree on the critique of empire and hypocrisy. Where I differ is that I don’t see Christ primarily as transmitting an abstract rule-set or monomyth. The Gospel isn’t proof-of-work or a system design. It is God’s redemptive work, confronting unjust power through covenant and incarnation in the Son of Man, not a set of transferable principles.
reply
Keep working on it, eventually you'll see the 4 rules everywhere, especially if you're a Bitcoiner. It's not my opinion that Christianity is about the propagation of the four rules, everyone lives as though they are true, including you. You are a Christian to the extent that you believe in the four pillars. Otherwise you're a hypocrite, or worse.
Why do you think He had to die, and knew it, in that way?
Question: I'm not big on the resurrection, not because I disbelieve it but because I don't necessarily understand it. But presumably you do, so why is it hard to believe that He is still acting on the world materially, if He was resurrected from the dead? What do you think Revelations is about?
reply
I’m not judging anyone here. I respect the seriousness of the question. I just see Christianity differently: it’s not mainly about rules people already try to follow.
It claims something specific happened, that Jesus, the only-begotten Son, fulfilled the Scriptures by confronting unjust power, teaching the truth, refusing violence, and being killed for it. For followers of the Way, the resurrection is what makes that life trustworthy: it says this wasn’t a brave loss, but a real victory we’re invited to share in.
That’s what gives people the courage to live this way now, without needing control, because death and violent power don’t get the last word.
reply
You might just need a bit more grace, to consider what people are telling you, as novel ways of thinking and informing your own faith, rather than invoking an immune response. Nothing I'm saying contradicts what you are saying, I'm just being more concise and succinct, and making the Way more clear, for you and whoever has ears to hear.
reply
You asked "What part of my comment suggested that Satoshi replaced Christ?"
It was this "So when Christ really returned it has to be under a pseudonym, giving us the gift again in a mode that is unrecognisable from His first life.'" I just wanted to clarify my position, since I do not hear to that interpretation. That's all.