It's very hard to moderate a religion when everyone with a functional brain leaves...
Which should be obvious, everytime someone leaves a church because it's too extreme, it gets more extreme.
It's like how neoliberals coming to the Dem party made it shittier and got us modern Republicans.
You're definitely right about that. I have to say I like what this Pope is saying, shame they barely listen to him. But that's Catholics I guess, still.
And if he had turned away because the church was more extreme than he was...
We'd be worse off.
Instead he became the fricken Pope and moderated on of the world's largest religions.
That is great, I would love to see similar movements in the Evangelical and Baptist faiths here. What about Islam who is moderating that?
Yeah, Christianity is circling the drain and as more leave, they just get more repugnant which drives out even more people
Yep.
Extremely weird behaviour. Although that was the case until around before covid (in some places it's still ongoing but it rapidly declines, churches led by atheists also rapidly die out)
It's hard to progress as a nation when the current admin undoes 75 years of social progress
Betcha the Civil Rights Act is on their crosshairs.
Mm, idk; Reagan did a fair amount of that, no?
My good them, they're trying to get us back to the 19th century.
You aren't wrong
While driving one day in Toronto, I accidentally tuned the radio to a US based "Christian" radio station. It was absolutely horrifying. There was nothing about Jesus AT ALL and a lot of "armour of god" and "defend yourself against enemies of the faith" and "build the empire of God's faithful here on earth".
Batshit crazy terrorist shit.
and yet he never once said "hey, you know what? free your fucking slaves". or "Hey, you know what? your daughters? they're people, too. Don't sell them as sex slaves." or "hey, you know what? ten year olds are too young to marry. don't be a fucking creep."
seems he has a vastly different understanding of who a "neighbor" is than I do today.
This 1000%. So fucking tired of Christian apologists pretending that "no, all that bad stuff was the Old Testament, Jesus was actually pretty much a leftist".
Fuck off. He said himself that not one iota of that law will change, so the "new covenant" shit is just bullshit cope.
All he had to do was be like, "hey guys, how about we don't own people as property," but apparently that's just too much.
Instead, he'll just talk about how the rules in the OT still apply. Rules that literally include guidelines for how to properly rape and beat the shit out of your slaves.
That a hyper focused point that seems based on a misunderstanding. I'm pretty much anti-theist myself at this point but I got that way by actually reading the religious texts and doctrines. Read a few different translations of the new test. Jesus says a lot of one off shit, more than a little is contradictory (because "Jesus" is most likely an amalgamation of a few different messianic cult leaders, they were all over at the time) but the main thing he's consistent with is treating everyone the way you want them to treat you. He never said except the slaves, and yes I know the bit you're referring to and it's a smidge disingenuous in context. Either way, that main golden rule is the most consistent bit of preaching the man Jesus did, and even though I'm pretty sure the guy didn't actually exist as a single individual it's a solid bit of advice. Ick, I feel kinda gross defending religion. Ugh.
You can either try to meet people halfway, or you can be hostile to people. See which one works out better for you. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say not the later.
“hey, you know what? ten year olds are too young to marry. don’t be a fucking creep.”
In their cultural context, that wouldn't be that far outside the norm. The notion that there's this magical line at 16-18 (in the US, depending on the state - possibly lower if the older partner is close in age or if they are married) is a 20th century invention. So, a guy from a text about 2000 years ago not expressing views on age and sexuality that were invented less than a hundred years ago is not exactly shocking.
Before the industrial revolution, children were often treated like smaller adults. Childhood was much shorter than nowadays and adolescence basically wasn't a thing culturally for the vast majority of history.
According to researchers of Christianity, Mary would have been around 12 to 14. And obviously there would have been a massive power imbalance between her and a deity. So by modern standards, Mary could not consent and was sexually abused. And then of course he left her to raise Jesus, his bastard child. All Christians essentially worship a child rapist. I'm not religious, but I like to think that god hasn't returned because the other gods have him serving time.
First off, it’s teally weird that you assume I’m okay with older creeps banging teens.
In a practical sense, there has to be a legal age, and every country in the world has defined it somewhere.
That said, it’s not Just 2,000 years ago. And where do you going the creepy old perverts marrying 10 year olds in the us get the idea that’s okay?
It ain’t from the numerous rigorous psych studies looking at the harm it does.
To be clear, when I say something is “immoral” that is an objective statement derived from my subjective morals- which are based on the idea that things that one’s acts should do the least harm or most good they can; and that unnecessary harm is always wrong.
Objectively, slavery and child marriage (I would call it child rape) is always on the extreme end of “harm”.
So while it may be engaging in presentism, I would say that according to my morals, the vast majority of cultures 2,000 years ago were immoral.
By Iron Age standards, Jesus may have been a good dude. But those standards suck, and I find them horrific.
I also find that statement dubious. In mark 7 and Matt 15, we find Jesus literally arguing that the Pharisees have stepped away from the law by not stoning disobedient children, where the Pharisees and other rabbis at the time have decided to severely limit that to the extent it almost didn’t happen.
And telling people to free their slaves is heavily implied by the "give up everything you have and follow me" thing.
I enjoy how that bit implies that yahweh knew there were other gods.
Oh yeah they've been increasingly like that for decades. And Christian radio is a hotbed of some of the worst they have to offer sanity wise
So, like. That’s totally unsurprising.
Fascism keeps cropping up in Christianity because it’s an inherently fascist in nature. Keep in mind jeebus claimed to be the Jewish messiah who was supposed to be a king, and lead the people of Judah back into religious purity, rise up against the oppressors and defeat all the other kingdoms in their small little version of the world… and enslave them.
To this, Jeebus added the whole “I’m going to throw everyone I don’t like into a pit of fire for the rest of eternity while everyone else glazes me and gives me blowjobs”
The idea that Jesus was somehow peaceful is the crazy shit.
I'm an atheist and fiercely anti-religion, but I was raised with a certain Christian education and I don't remember anything resembling this about Jesus. Only that he said he was the son of God. Nothing about rising up against people, defeating them and enslaving them.
His message was to have some fucking empathy and stop hating each other for once.
I hope this sarcasm
Then the people giving you that certain education either lied to you or never read the damn Bible.
Am in paraphrasing it? Absolutely. But the only peace Jesus was going to bring was the same kind of “peace” palpatine brought the empire.
As for throwing people into eternal torture, that’s just an honest reading of his words in the New Testament.
either lied to you or never read the damn Bible.
Did you read it? Because I did. For shits n giggles. Or to actually see what the fuss was all about. And I can confidently say that you're way off.
It was also part of Republicans "Southern Strategy" to target Christians and fold them into the party. This is the result 50 years later.
That's some very wild and original claims, lol. I know you don't want to, but I recommend you actually read the Bible before participating in these things. Just the Abrahamic religions in general, it'd be good to brush up on the basics.
If you want to be all grumpy at a teligion, speak out against those that weaponise religions, because that's actually what's happening here and has happened all the time through human history. You don't need to make stuff up and try to link a religion to facism; one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans, no less—who coincidentally did what with religions?
That’s some very wild and original claims, lol.
only if your level of understanding comes from Sunday school classes that don't actually go into anything uncomfortable. If you read the scholarship... it's not that uncommon.
First off, recognize that Jesus wasn't "christian", he was an aramaic jew. You can read about what (modern) jews say here, for example.
Of particular note is that the messiah is going to gather the exiles, restore mosiac law, bring reward to the righteous, restore the line of david (because they're a direct heir to david,) and rebuild jerusalem and the temple there.
that link also has the list of all the passages that are deemed to be messianic prophecy at the bottom. These are the prophecies that the coming messiash is supposed to fulfill. I don't think christian Sunday School teachers (or priests, or pastors, or even the pope himself) is going to admit to you that Jesus did not fulfill any of them, in the context as originally given. Which is why, for example, the authors of mathew go to Isaiah 7:14 and insist there's a virgin there. ('parthenos' originally was just a young woman. it only later came to mean, specifically, a virgin woman. the orgiinal hebrew was "a pregnant young woman" and the only purpose of that was an indication of time for the rest of the prophecy to be fulfilled.)
If you don't want to follow those links (it goes to sefaria, which uses the JPS english translation).... Here are the relevant prophecies in Isaiah, Jerimiah, Ezekiel 38:18, Hosea 3, Micah 4, Zephaniah 3, Zechariah 14, Daniel 10.
Jeremiah 30:18 pretty much sums up what I'm saying here:
Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured,
and all your foes, every one of them, shall go into captivity;
those who plunder you shall be plundered,
and all who prey on you I will make a prey.
it's in the middle of a prophecy about restoring Israel from exile, so definitely read the full context there.
Or, there's promises of protection as found in Ezekiel 38:17-23:
^17^Thus says the Lord God: Are you he of whom I spoke in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel, who in those days prophesied for years that I would bring you against them? ^18^On that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel, says the Lord God, my wrath shall be aroused. ^19^For in my jealousy and in my blazing wrath I declare: On that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; ^20^the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the animals of the field and all creeping things that creep on the ground and all humans who are on the face of the earth shall quake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground. ^21^I will summon the sword against Gog[e] in all my mountains, says the Lord God; the swords of all will be against their comrades. ^22^With pestilence and bloodshed I will enter into judgment with him, and I will pour down torrential rains and hailstones, fire and sulfur upon him and his troops and the many peoples who are with him. ^23^So I will display my greatness and my holiness and make myself known in the eyes of many nations. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.
verse 18 is considered the messianic prophecy, but I've included the others fro more context. immediately prior, god is saying that he's going to CAUSE Gog to invade. he's saying he'll put hook sin their mouth and drag them to war (verse 4,) that he'll put evil thoughts into their minds (verse 10,)
or there's Micah 4:11-13
^11^Now many nations
are assembled against you,
saying, “Let her be profaned,
and let our eyes gaze upon Zion.”
^12^But they do not know
the thoughts of the Lord;
they do not understand his plan,
that he has gathered them as sheaves to the threshing floor.
^13^Arise and thresh,
O daughter Zion,
for I will make your horn iron
and your hoofs bronze;
you shall beat in pieces many peoples
and shall devote their gain to the Lord,
their wealth to the Lord of the whole earth.
Or there's Zecharia 14:9
And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one.
that's a military campaign, yo. I would call that global domination. Though they only knew about a relatively small corner of the world. it goes on in 12-19
^12^This shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples who wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths. ^13^On that day a great panic from the Lord shall fall on them, so that each will seize the hand of a neighbor, and the hand of the one will be raised against the hand of the other; ^14^even Judah will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations shall be collected: gold, silver, and garments in great abundance. ^15^And a plague like this plague shall fall on the horses, the mules, the camels, the donkeys, and whatever animals may be in those camps.
?^16^Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. ^17^If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them. ^18^And if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, there will be no rain for them; there will be the plague that the Lord inflicts on the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths. ^19^Such shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths.
This is what Jesus was claiming here was here to do when he claimed to be messiah (John 4:25-26,, Mathew 16:15-17, 26:63-64)
Christians love to turn it into something else entirely, but that's a straight up lie. In Mat 5:17-20, these messianic prophecies are what Jesus is "fulfilling" (as well as the broader covenant with Moses and abraham.)
and while the authors of mathew and luke are wrong every time they say Jesus fulfilled some messianic prophecy- half aren't even prophecies- the reason they went to all that effort showing what prophecies Jesus fulfilled was to demonstrate that jesus was the messiah. Like the story of Jesus riding on a donkey to fulfill Zechariah 9:9, but jesus was never a king in jerulsalem and just riding a donkey isn't fulfillment of that.
As for the eternal torture... C'mon. Jesus practically got off on all that torture.
f you want to be all grumpy at a teligion, speak out against those that weaponise religions, because that’s actually what’s happening here and has happened all the time through human history. You don’t need to make stuff up and try to link a religion to facism; one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans, no less—who coincidentally did what with religions?
whose the one making shit up?
one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans
I imagine Hitler said some nice things from time to time. he was still an awful fucking human. Most people are just people. No one is all-evil or all-good. So what's your point? that the bible contradicts itself? this is known.
What I do know is that the words of Jesus in the NT contain some absolutely horrific shit and absolutely would- and should- be equated as "fascism" in modern parlance. I mean, in the words of jesus himself, as recorded in the NT: "Don't be scared of the guy who can kill you... be scared of ME as I claim to be the guy who can kill you AND TORTURE YOU FOR FUCKING ETERNITY!"
Yeah. that totally sounds like a pacifist.
Which brings us back to reading the bible, no? Like. Seriously. there's parts that are like "Don't be an ass", there's parts that are trying to not be assholish, but would be so today, and then there's parts that are total assholery. I'm not ignoring the parts that are "don't be an ass" but I'm also not ignoring the assholery, or the parts where they try to not be assholes but we'd say they are. (like those bits about not beating your slaves to death. yeah. Like. it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they don't die that day.)
Jesus was absolutely teaching the Torah and the written law of moses, as stated in mat 5:17-20. not that christians seem to understand that. the implication here is that Jesus was totally on board with all the horrific shit in the "old" testament. including slavery, and it being permissible to beat your slaves to an inch of their lives, so long as they don't day in a day or two.
Most of what you're posting isn't fact-checking, it's traditional interpretation vs another, on a position of truth, just like a Sunday school teacher acts themselves.
You've done little much more than kind of point out some distinctions of why the Christian ideology came to exist while neglecting the foundational ones. Yes, obviously there's contention of Christ meeting messianic criteria which is literally the whole fucking thing of Abrahamic religions being a plural. But then at the same time you keep referencing the Bible but no other literature whether Judaic, Islamic, or even Mesopotamian/Babylonian laws that suspiciously made their way over amongst other things.
Despite this, you seem to have picked full affirmation based on what the Torah asserts, despite being one of the main splits of Christianity. Completely glossing over how the entire function of Christian law in the NT is deeply covered by Paul—kind of the main guy that defined it all in detail, kicking off the ideology that would be established nearly three centuries later... Through the power of junk mail to different Mediterranean cities and societies, of all methods. Seriously, I don't know how modern Thessaloniki somehow managed to be cooler than other Greek cities despite being an epicentre.
And then, out of no where, fast-forward to fascism? lol
I don't think a 1st century apocalyptic preacher or even a 120-year old Nile baby is what Benito had in mind when establishing a political ideology of state rule over all other entities, including religions.
You've certainly got a position and I do not think it's scholarly nor without personal religious influence.
one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans, no less—who coincidentally did _what_ with religions?
Did what? I’m curious what you think the obvious answer is here.
Without wading into the core tiff you guys are having, I do need to push my proverbial glasses up my nose and point out that the Romans were pagans - polytheists. From what I’ve seen they were pretty tolerant of other gods being worshipped, which is why there was a temple, and the Sanhedrin, and the Pharisees, and so on and so forth, in occupied Jerusalem.
So I think the answer to your rhetorical question above is that the Roman’s famously absorbed or accepted other religions, as long as they didn’t disturb the peace and as long as they weren’t in direct conflict with their laws - which I think Judaism and most early sects of Christianity mostly were - in part because they were intolerant of other gods.
To the degree that there was persecution, it seems like it was mostly linked to Jews or Christians in other cities who refused to make sacrifices to the local gods. If the harvest wasn’t great one season, the locals might start to blame those weirdos who only want one god for some reason, and who offended their local gods. So even this was almost more about disturbing the peace then theology.
Even then, they were often offered amnesty if they would change their minds. They just had to stop doing the thing that was pissing off the locals and their gods.
Obviously Nero Neroed all over the Christians later on but there are good reasons for thinking that was all about framing them for the Great Fire of Rome, which he supposedly started himself so that he could build his Golden House.
Anyway, carry on with whatever this is.
Nah, that's good points and all true.
My remark was more toward societal use and punishment of religions which varied hugely and was literally opposite of true or reputationally true depending on the Caesar.
Like, Christ was ultimately killed because the Romans were being so chill, "I don't get it, but if it means that much to you, let's kill the guy." Though, Christianity's own gospel establishes itself on that whole "Go the extra mile" peg aligned to that era's oppression.
So really, what I said was just broad and kind of valueless since we know what the Romans were like in that period.
And as for what that is; wasn't ever sure. It seemed like a whole lot of regurgitated doctrine that was unfortunately very easily triggered and presented in a gigantic everything salad. I think it's still going, but it really depends on fatigue levels. My only investment was around the misrepresentation and not the details, since these are all recorded and widely known. It's never nice to see history weaponised and cherry picked, but in there lies some irony.
I think at this point it's just a typical "The devil's advocate is the devil" scenario. Faceless target dummy and all.
Ephesians 6
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Where do I get some of these fiery darts for fending off the local rabid Christians?
That is NOT what they were saying.
Basically in an Abrahamic marriage, a woman enters into a life long sex/work slavery relationship. They can't legally get out of again according to the Bible.
This is one of the reasons I have been against the principle of traditional marriage.
I am however married today, but only by secular procedure, not anything religious.
The same rules for marriage applies to men
What's the point of marriage at all if separating would be easy anyway? Unless you implement some form of legal equality for cohabiting persons
What's the point of marriage at all if separating would be easy anyway?
What's the point of marriage if you're only with the person because separating would be difficult?
The same rules for marriage applies to men
Never has this been true. Even if it's true on paper in modern times. That's why there's "no fault" divorce.
Edit: although certain indigenous religions did give women more rights to divorce the spouse
Abrahamic religions have had these problems for millennia, can't really blame the spooks for their misogyny. "Oh but the spooks made it worse!" it was there to exploit in the first place. Can't spiral a religion on their own misogyny if they reject it as abhorrent to begin with.
Remember, folks, the reason the SBC split from mainline baptists was because of slavery.
The northern Baptist’s were opposed to slavery and southern baptists saw slave owners as “missionaries”. That is, people whose job is to “proselytize” the Baptist leadership at the time was dominated by the north and rejected slave owners as missionaries, and so the asshole southerners split off. Cuz they didn’t want to give up their slaves.
So fuck the SBC in particular.
I mentioned above that I grew up Southern Baptist (not only as a church member, but also educated from preschool through high school at a Southern Baptist school; also attended two undergraduate schools with SBC roots) and guess what? They NEVER taught us this history. Wasn't until I started paying attention to things that I began to really wonder why the "Southern" was in our name...
To be clear, they removed some things from the Bible that might promote ideas like freedom and liberty.
I don't believe they added or changed anything (beyond typical translation issues). Because they didn't really have to, did they? The Bible basically contains an instruction manual for raping and beating your slaves
I spent a lot of time in SBC. 2026, they will not perform an interracial marriage for their congregation.
They are the cells of MAGA. Fuck them and I hope hell is real just for them.
The kingdom is within. It's because they are in hell and too afraid to face their own demons that they inflict hell on others. They project their sins (demons) on others because they are too fragile, it's too painful to look deeply and honestly at self, as do most of the rest of us, to greater or lesser degrees. That's why the Great Merkavist, Magician, Healer, Almighty said to bless those who curse you and pray for those who persecute you. And why, as he hung on the cross, in the death throes of the most brutal torture imaginable, his torturers told him to heal himself. We don't see our own shadows, but in someone else, until we get super honest, and, as AA says, take a fearless and searching moral inventory of ourselves. Because as long as our gaze is outward, we're not bothered by the occasional inward accidental glimpse.
I’m so sick of religious people.
Just reassure me Hitchens isn't falling in love with some AI, please.
Considering he died in 2011, I think that's a safe bet.
Well, now I feel silly.
Ayyy the Hitchslap baby! Lol I remember like 15 years ago watching Hitchens compilations on YouTube in my parents' basement lol
I don’t like any of them especially the abrahamic religions. The people are fine and vary but none of these moronic fairy tale books should be in any government
Remember, the Southern Baptists split from the mainstream Baptist Church because they supported enslavement.
yep. it's funny the comments here being all mad. like... you want a extremist/fundamentalist sect to what... be shockingly progressive on this one issue? kind of a silly expectation.
It would be exactly the same. If you think different you're just naive
If Richard Dawkins thinks that his instance of Claude is sentient, then it just proves that no one is completely immune to this particular glitch in the human brain. We'll find some other illogical fable to latch onto.
Ppl will always find someone or something to deify
I get the sentiment but this makes you as bad as they are.
How about "Don't tell other people how to live their lives?" and we can all go do what the fuck we want on Sundays?
How about “Don’t tell other people how to live their lives?” and we can all go do what the fuck we want on Sundays?
Step 1: Getting the religious to agree to this
Fun fact: You can be a moral person even if the other party isn't!
Let's ban all ideologies.
let's not forget that the sole reason that the Southern Baptist Convention exists is because they wanted to keep black folks out of their churches. When the big Baptist association was taking a stand on civil rights, the scum bags that would become the Southern Baptists took their ball and left.
Oh no, it was way worse than that.
The SBC existed because Triennial Convention wouldn't accept slavery. The SBC was formed to uphold slavery. They didn't apologize as a congregation for their views until 1995. 150 years is a bit late to the party but it certainly helps inform why many of us aren't surprised by this.
I am sure they will realize they are making a mistake and apologize 150 years from now.
I firmly believe that a woman who is in her heart a deeply racist and hateful person should be allowed to become a SBC pastor.
I am sure they will realize they are making a mistake and apologize 150 years from now.
It took them 150 years to say they were sorry the congregation was formed by people who thought other people were livestock. I would be shocked if they actually apologized for less.
Oh damn! My bad. I can't believe I was so wrong.
I mean... they've done a FANTASTIC job on their PR campaign hiding that history so I don't blame others for missing it. But I'll certainly be the first one to point it out every chance I can. There's a lot of terrible religions, and the SBC may not be the exact worst when Scientology exists. but it's certainly up there.
Everyone who's been to a church knows how vitally important the speaker's pennis is to the sermon.
So many pick-mes among women who vote like this. They think they are different and will be seen as "one of the good ones" with special rights to be part of the "cool kid in-group" while the other side just thinks of them as useful idiots.
Recently came across articles and videos of women who are actively fighting to lose their right to vote (they only want their husbands to), so yeah, this tracks.
This is why we have to control the national educational curriculum on a national basis, and not allow backwards states to destroy the lives of their citizens by keeping them ignorant, just so they can control and exploit them. If they won't properly take care of the intellectual well-being of their own citizens, then we will.
The sole opposition came from South Carolina pastor Doug Mize. He said the measure wasn’t necessary because the denomination already has a mechanism to expel churches with women in senior pastoral positions, and it’s done so on multiple times.
“What we have already works,” he said.
It sounds like they can be assistants, but if one gets control they kick the whole church out
What a fun people.
This isn’t a toxic system at all. It treats everyone fairly. The men get treated fairly by letting them raise their voices at crowds, and women get treated fairly with exile.
Perfectly fair.
I have no recent experience with Southern Baptists but twenty years ago the rule was, women cannot teach the Bible to men. It wasn’t common but it was tolerable for women to be a music leader. Women could teach and counsel other women. Women could teach children. Women could teach men anything that was not the Bible or derived from it. If the church had a food pantry or a crisis pregnancy center, women could run it and give orders to men who worked there, except on any matter touching religious doctrine.
My mom was telling me about how there are hardly any people left at church.
Apparently they had a split between the progressive and conservative factions of the church, and the progressives all departed.
The progressives tended to be the young families with children. The conservatives tended to be the people who will be dead soon. Like the church.
What's the point of having two catholic churches? This is removing the SB's only marketing niche.
Southern Baptists:
Catholic Church
Welcome to Giliad. Blessed be the fruit, motherfuckers.
The same men telling women in the SBC to get out of the pulpit are the same men telling the victims of sexual offenses in SBC churches to shut up and get over it.
While women may have held a quieter role in supporting the pedo/rapey shit that goes down in the SBC and maybe still do, the VAST list of SCB sexual offenders and their protectors is made of men, the internal hierarchy of power is rigid and unyielding, and for as much concerned pearl-clutching as SBC leaders engage in every time it hits the news, which it does frequently, they still haven't really done anything to slow it down. A couple of these articles are older, but nothing substantial has changed:
How an Alleged Predator Remade the Southern Baptist Convention -- Texas Monthly
Read these at your own risk: they are thoroughly sickening. But there is a pattern: for every individual who is harmed, there appears to be a machine ready to shut them down, one that was operative as far back as the 1970s.
So knowing what I know about what goes down in the SBC and has for decades, when I see a headline like the above, "Southern Baptists vote to advance a formal ban on churches with women pastors," I don't see it as having anything primarily to do with doctrine, especially since if the doctrine were that important there would be any number of things they'd already be doing differently.
Rather, I see a group of predators seeking to ensure that their hunting grounds remain fresh, open, and uncluttered with victims they have already used and/or anyone who would speak for them or act on their behalf.
I'm not a Christian and I have no dog in this hunt, but if there was ever a religious organization that desperately needs to be stopped on its institutional slide back to the 1950s (or 1750s), the SBC would absolutely be it.
Trad-wives speed running to Gilead
What do you expect from people who follow a 2,000+ year old book written by people we’d consider insane if we tried to speak with them today. It offers zero proof of its god and no one to this day has been able to bring any evidence. The bible’s been rewritten over a dozen times under the influence of kings with their own agendas. Yet somehow this work of fiction (by all applicable standards it should be) is what these people form their lives around. They magically always find a way to interpret its passages to support their own biases. Regardless of the amazing ideas philosophy and science have brought to humanity, they keep retreating to the magical thinking of the past. Of course they hate progress like women having power in their little club.
Sure, alienate half your members, good plan.
"Say, Clem, any idea why donations are down?"
Lmao they aren't alienating themself from the majority of their members at all. You know which churches have women pastors? The same ones that let queers in and talk about "accepting" people.
I grew up going to a Southern Baptist church. This decision will not be unpopular.
That are voting FOR this too. Smdh they are so brainwashed
Allowing bronze age discriminating principles that reflect clearly bad morals are a sin not a virtue. These principles are also illegal in most civilized countries. Allowing special pleading for religions on issues we know are morally wrong, is a crime against humanity.
Dude. The bronze agers were a bit more advanced. Miriam was the high priestess, pictured here: https://miro.medium.com/...
Seated between the two temple pillars, Jachin (male principal, also mercy), and Boaz (feminine principal, severity. Yes I know Boaz was a male in the OT. Take it up with Rider and Waite).
So the Puritans were too hateful to get along with the British religious people, and centuries later, the Southern Baptists are too hateful to get along with Puritans descendants. And while Holiness churches are stricter, in some regards, women are leaders in the church, and also considered prophetesses, at least in my area.
Tl;dr Southern Baptist faith is less evolved than Bronze Age nomads.
I never claimed all Bronze age societies were equally immoral. But the Bible teaches that women must stay silent in assemblies, unless permitted to speak (by the men)
Generally:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NIV): "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
But particularly in church:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. (referring to old testament law)
cf. other primates noticing injustice
There are some near-universals.
Other primates seem to have a similar sense of it, so check out some of those ethology studies for starting from very basic principles of commonality.
"Boys' club votes to confirm that girls are yucky and dumb" is all I see.
I grew up Southern Baptist, with a lean toward the even more fundamentalist side of things. I'm now Episcopalian. I remember Pastor Lynne, the first woman priest I ever had. Completely changed my perspective on this subject. It's funny, but the clergy and theologians who have been the most influential to me in recent years have largely been women: Kate Sonderegger, Catherine Pickstock, Kathy Grieb (two of those names were professors of mine in seminary). And my diocese (Hawai'i) just elected the first woman to be our bishop in our history! Saint Mary Magdalene was the first person to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus, in effect making her the first Christian evangelist. Sad that there are still so many parts of the Christian world that fail to heed what Jesus was doing.
Not when the missing books contradict their beliefs
What's funny is that the included books often contradict their beliefs. And how do they handle that? Well, guess how many times I've heard a Southern Baptist preacher preach on Matthew 25: 31-46? (This is the one where Jesus says that people who neglect the poor and harm immigrants, etc. are effectively doing that to Him)
I used to live in a city with a very progressive Episcopalian Church (lesbian pastor, Philadelphia pride flag, "protect our immigrants", actively helped the homeless, the whole shebang) but they were struggling (in terms of congregation numbers and I think finances too) because even though their messaging aligned with the political attitudes of many in this left-leaning city, most of those folks had abandoned religion in disgust altogether. I saw the same with a progressive Catholic chapter in another deep-blue city: their congregation was shrinking because Christianity as a whole had become so tainted in the public eye that the people who would have been most aligned with their message was turned off entirely.
So sad, but true. I recall a comment I read many years ago in response to the Episcopal Church's progressive stances that said something like "I'm so happy that you're doing that, but I'm no longer a Christian so... good for you all, I guess."
There are also those who look at what we're doing as basically a kind of marketing. While there are probably a few clergy in the Episcopal Church who see us as "Christianity, but not like you remember" or whatever, for the most part we Episcopalians have arrived at our progressive place out of a difficult struggle with being faithful to the gospel. When I hear the criticism that "if what you're doing is true, how come more churches aren't doing what you do?" (which can come from multiple angles), I always go back to Jesus saying that "narrow is the road that leads to salvation." That and "take up your cross and follow me." Following Jesus isn't meant to be a path to political power and influence. The only time Jesus was ever in the halls of political power, it was for a sham trial in order to nail Him to a cross.
Wouldn't the whole Jesus vs money changers thing count as him entering a metaphical hall of political power as well. That involved Jesus attacking those aligned with the established authorities for their own profit in a frothing rage.
Maybe? The money changers were operating in the Second Temple, which was the focus of Jewish religious/cultural identity. The High Priests held significant cultural sway... I suppose this is a fair argument. The money changers were also extorting their own people's religious convictions for a dime, which feels quite resonant with what we're seeing today.
Moderately surprised that the branch of Christianity devoted to preserving slavery didn’t already ban women from being pastors.
oppressive banjo noises
As long as the Bible remains the way it is, this will keep happening. And as long as churches keep propping up doctrines like sola sciptura and biblical inerrancy, modifications to passages in the Bible will remain a niche thing.
Which is wild. Theologically, the Bible is equal parts history, allegory, and legal framework. Not everything in it is meant to be taken literally, or even treated as error-free, or even as a permanent and immutable institution.
Hell, it even has porn in it. Straight up, Song of Solomon is just the Bible's center fold.
Yeah, it's pretty cognitively dissonant to hold those doctrines, because the Bible is so full of self-contradiction that every Bible-believer necessarily has to pick and choose which doctrines they adopt.
Plus, by their own measures, their obsession with the book really is a form of idolatry, or bibliolatry as they call it.
Maybe they should ban Southern Baptists?
Considering the vote was over 2/3 in favour of the motion, a lot of women would have voted in support of it. I don't support it, but I'm also not a baptist.
Yet, many Jewish sects have female rabbis.
Many Christian sects also have female leaders. The Episcopal Church comes to mind as one of the bigger ones. The Southern Baptists would say Episcopalianism is not Christianity, though. Hell, I think that's even their stance on Catholicism.
Episcopalians are the wealthiest sect of Christianity, they value education and intellectualism, like the many Jewish sects do.
In other words, they are godless heathens...
That's exactly what they say. The Chick comics go so far as to call the Catholic church the antichrist. They're kind of hilarious.
Without doing any research, I would say you are correct. They generally have a problem with Catholic saints, among other things.
no, all religion bad. can't have good religion, all bad. because men or something
(grunt) me intellectual Lemming. Me very smart. I see 'relijun bad always', I upvote! I think for self. I want upvote too! (Grunt)
I’m also not a baptist.
...and you're especially not a Southern Baptist, the most fundamentalist mainstream flavor of the baptists. The Bible says a lot of things, and every sect picks and chooses favorites, in this case there's a verse about not permitting a woman to teach or hold authority over a man that's probably relevant.
🤣 You think they let women vote
No surprise from the southern traitors and the baptist heretics.
Southern Baptists were formed to use God to justify slavery. No surprise that they continue to be disgusting people.
Our local United Church of Christ is very liberal, at least on social matters - so much so that one of our Unitarian Universalist communities was sharing their space for a while and everyone got on great it seems.
Not surprising at all tbh
I vote to advance a formal ban on churches!
Oh boy time for a new schism!
I wonder how many people are going to have to die in Christian Sectarian Terrorism over the next decade or so before any of them remember that the 1st Amendment exists to protect against one group of them taking over the government and using it to kill or disenfranchise all the heretics.
A new schism?
SBC has had this view as long as it’s been around. It’s the main reason they separated from the world baptist conference and went their own way — other baptist churches formally recognized women’s equality, and some even went as far as human equality no matter what gender or sex you claimed to be.
It’s not just pastors: in general, they don’t allow women in any leadership roles in the church where they would have authority over a man.
There are exceptions, but they just prove the rule.
This whole religious thing is just so gross. Another threat vector on the plane of working class struggle. Another hurdle to climb which is all by design cause people are afraid to die....or afraid to live. Guided by the angels of guilt and shame giving power to the demons of the here and now. The layers of the man made monstrous dumb dumb onion of no human progress. The capitalist lied, they got you to build the infrastructure not of living but the prison that you and your young will die in. They want their cake and eat it. It is exponential this desire.
Oh how they get chu with the ol good cop vs bad cop method. Wrapped around their little finger.
This all really bleeds over into why people do not think for themselves for they allow themselves to be guided like a horse. It is like the hypnotist that gets you to shoot your friend sitting next to you. Like a scene in a scifi movie. Or the still developing frontal cortex yet legal adult who was groomed from birth via shoot em video games, plus online military recruiters to one day join the imperialist empire of the USA to go kill women and children. Then go bananas when they come back and make the local news. One more familicied. Hurt people hurt people. This whole ass culture is traumatizing by design. "Race" vs "race" (what the fuck ever, there is only one race), Old against the young, city vs rural, small business owner vs working people and so on and so on. We have no third spaces without a capo corpo logo. We got choices of directions that lead to the same ends. A fork in the road with one handle. We are being herded and calmed.... as they ram in the spike. We are our only friends. No one is comming. We are the adults in the room.
🎶Everybody wants to rule the world🎶 ummm actualy they don't and you are a psychopath and that's not normal.
Life is a stage and we all getting played.
If you ever want to know how Trump took office, watch the Christian Broadcasting Network for an evening or check out their website.
Millions of people believe this crap, and Baptists are a big part of CBN. I attended church for many years as a kid, and they are unbelievably bat-shit crazy. You think I'm exaggerating, but the deeper you get into the faith, the more that will be revealed to you. They have schools that teach children, colleges, and more. They also love home schooling.
Even as church attendance falters, it's so much more than that, and its reach is global.
...and remember, they will work together with other sects as they must against the secular world. It's not just Baptists, but Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Assembly of God... all different faces of the same beast.
The amendment would tighten existing restrictions in the Southern Baptist Convention, which already has a faith statement opposing women pastors.
So no self respecting pastor, man or woman, would be caught dead being a member of the Southern Baptist Convention to begin with from the sounds of it. Seems like a good question to ask the pastor if they are a member if you are the type afflicted with religion when church shopping.
There isn't correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn't have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn't contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.
Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.
if some randos on lemmy have to explain to you the socioeconomic influence of organised religion on society then you sure as hell are not one to judge others opinions.
Why is someone from the UK so butthurt about Americans reacting to American problems? You're literally calling people in the comments bigots for making tongue-in-cheek comments about banning churches and pretending like morality is impossible to quantify and purely subjective.
This isn't an American issue, it's a Christian issue. Christian church structure doesn't answer to secular morality.
Banning churches is religious bigotry.
Morality isn't subjective. Morality has an objective foundation. For a Christian, that objective foundation for morality is found within The Bible correctly interpreted and read within context. The Bible forbids women from holding authority over men in ecclesial matters. Therefore it cannot be morally wrong.
My religion says that I am morally obligated to beat you up and steal your car, so how dare you argue that I shouldn't.
You're a religious bigot if you try to tell me that following the tenets of my faith are wrong.
Just because a book says a thing doesn't make it right or justified, and crying about being a victim while actively supporting oppression doesn't make you a champion of good.
You might want to read up on the "No true Scotsman" fallacy too.
I am not a part of your religion. So why should it affect me? The ecclesial structure of churches doesn't affect you. If you want to form a religion where consenting converts are obliged to beat each other up and be beaten up and steal each others cars, why should I object
These assholes vote.
That affects me.
I want to live in a more fair, equal, and just society while they do everything in their power to drag us back to howling barbarism and then pretend I’m the one persecuting them.
There isn't correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn't have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn't contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.
Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.
Yeah. No.
Sorry. That would not be a distinction first century audiences would make. Women were to obey their husbands (or fathers if they were unmarried) in all things, not just in spiritual matters.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
It's very difficult to progress as a nation when you have millions of people who refuse to enter the 21st century.
save