You're viewing a single thread.
I love when religions try to be relatable to the commoners after all the atrocities committed by them or in their names.
But, SatansMaggotyCumFart, I figured you to be a fierce advocate of organized religion especially of the WASP variety.
It's really really progressive church who are not like those shitty conservative churches. I don't think anything of those churches either.
For me it's not about the shittiness of the Church. If you are from a progressing and welcoming church then that's great and you're probably giving some people a community who might not have had one otherwise.
I get more caught up in the fact that an adult would actually believe this crap. Even young kids know magic isn't real but actual adult humans believe in it with all their hearts.
If you don't you don't, that's fine for you. I wish you the best regardless.
Participating in any Christianity props up and validates the bad ones.
That said, if you really are the "good ones" then I wish you luck in fixing the rest of Jesus' stray flock. And I hope you personally get the chance to fix some of them.
I don't want to fix anybody. I want to do my best and be with other people who also feel that way, in an inclusive and completely welcoming way to all. I absolutely hate the bastardized version of Christianity it has become for many and I won't stand for it.
Well that's a shame. As a fellow Christian you're in the unique position to "call in" your peers and actually be listened to.
You don't "fix" other people. You fix yourself. That's all you have any control over.
You don't control other people, but you constantly influence them.
Isn't the whole point of a pastor to encourage other people to be their best selves? Isn't that fixing them?
Encourage, sure. Control, no. As was implied.
This right here. There are no good participants in religion. Everyone participating, no matter their intent or actions, is s part of the problem. Because they enable the bad behavior by supporting the underlying common beliefs and adding some degree of legitimacy to this.
It's the same problem with ACAB
Let me guess, it has a trampoline room and the youth pastor has a man bun and a couple bitchin’ jesus tattoos?
Probably they're more like Quakers, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, or United Methodists. You know, the denominations with openly gay clergy who see their role as advancing the cause of social justice and helping the poor and disenfranchised in their communities.
Giving people shit for a label is bigoted as fuck. Also, thanks for making a dad joke thread about your unresolved religious trauma.
United Methodist is a tricky example to use. I know because I was one of their clergy at one point.
Officially they still ban gay clergy, even after the recent schism where the most-bigoted group left and formed the "Global Methodist Church."
American United Methodists (especially the clergy) tend to be fairly progressive, but the African and Asian branches of the church are massive and extremely conservative. They've managed to keep the church from being able to change its official stance on homosexuality, which is that it's "incompatible with Christian teaching."
United Methodists are no longer cool. They voted against gay marriage. And yes, to be fair, a good number of local congregations were pissed
That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.
More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination
With these departures, progressives are expected to propose changing church law at the next General Conference in 2024 to allow for same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ people.
That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.
"We only voted against human rights so the people who are against those human rights can leave with all their money and property intact, we promise!"
Man, you're making these "progressive" churches sound wonderful!
Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don't blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.
Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.
We will see if they make good on it next year.
Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don’t blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.
Exactly. Like when the north was about to win the civil war, Lincoln allowed some slavery to be legal.
Or when the allies were on the brink of victory, they went and allowed some concentraition camps to open again.
Also, folding and voting against human rights to keep your hand on some property doesn't sound like winning to me.
Maybe you meant the Charlie Sheen kind of "winning"?
Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.
I will! Fuck them, it was a shit decision, good job appeasing the regressives, well done guys.
The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.
This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their "divorce" amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.
It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren't actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.
Not that I give a fuck whether the UMC survives, but you are correct. The bigots are leaving the denomination and many/most that left joined the Global Methodist Church.
The only reason that the UMC wasn’t gay as fuck years ago is because the denomination is global and the African churches are bigoted against LGBTQ+. Their votes plus a fifth of USA congregations was enough to guarantee a schism. They’re just being strategic about the breakup because of how property is owned in the denomination.
True, sadly. Though there's been a lot of local defiance of that and in 2024 they're expected to vote on it again.
The local UM congregation in my city has a gay pastor and giant banners up detailing that they are open and affirming. There's a whoooole splinter going on right now.
Some of the conservative nutjobs are breaking off too, but a lot of that is in the US South (and Africa, interestingly; still a lot of homophobia on that continent).
Also should be mentioned that there are two similarly named Presbyterian church denominations and one is cool and the other is VERY not.
Still, all the more reason to not get hung up on labels.
Permanently Deleted
What do you think the point of differing denominations is if not to have modified/different and, as the person you responded to said, more right ideologies?
Permanently Deleted
I'm not religious these days, but I'm really glad the church I raised in was a UCC church. My first experience with blatant church bigotry was when I went to a Baptist church service with a friend when I was around 10. Pastor used 3 slurs within 10 minutes, even as a 10 year old I was wondering what the fuck happened to love thy neighbor.
Permanently Deleted
You're holding this person responsible for an evil because they share a demographic with the perpetrators, even though they have nothing to do with it? Yeah that sounds like bigotry to me.
Permanently Deleted
Correct me if I'm misapplying your logic then, but it sounds like this means...
- It's okay to hold Muslims responsible for Al Qaeda because they can just choose not to follow Islam.
- It's okay to think of all Romani as criminals because they can just choose to leave their culture.
- It's okay to be misandristic because they can just choose to transition.
Permanently Deleted
Precisely we're like that. It's honestly very excellent.
Giving people shit for a label is bigoted as fuck.
Only if you have no choice about it. I have zero qualms criticizing people for their choices.
From Merriam-Webster:
Bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intoleranceSynonyms include dogmatist, partisan, and sectarian.
Here's an article that may help you to understand why you are a bigot a bit better: https://www.existbetter.co/single-post/2019/04/15/Bigotry-is-a-SymptomHow-to-Handle-a-Bigot
Hopefully we can eliminate hate of all kinds from this world.
Racial or ethnic groups are made up of people who did not have a choice about their race or ethnicity. While indoctrination from childhood can certainly cause a person's religious views, and work alongside community pressure to keep them pinned in place, ultimately an individual is responsible for their own thoughts. Criticizing someone for what they think is not bigotry.
Your article link goes to a domain that does not exist.
Maybe it's blocked in your country. I had no trouble accessing the article.
EDIT: Looks like the website got deleted after I linked it. Weird.
Looks like this domain isn't
connected to a website yet
Is this your domain?
Connect it to your Wix website in just a few easy steps:
Go to Wix.com > Subscriptions > Domains
Click Use a Domain You Already Own
Follow the steps to connect your domain to your website
What label am I giving out here?
I think you misread. Cylus was saying it's bigoted to attack someone because of a label.
Permanently Deleted
Who was I attacking?
Ah, the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not touching you!"
Am I attacking you?
I love when religions try to be relatable to the commoners after all the atrocities committed by them or in their names.
I don't know what exactly you meant by this but it sounds a lot like a "Friendly reminder that Christians are evil."
I meant exactly what I said.
You're definitely attacking OP, who's just here to post a funny wifi name.
I'm so sorry about what ever happened to you. Hopefully your life will turn around.
And in some circles tattoos are a no-no, a la leviticus 19:28
Is that one of the passages that is listened to or ignored?
I get confused which ones are important sometimes.
To keep it straight, remember when Jesus declared all foods clean. He didn't say "all foods are clean," he gave a policy basically stating that external things aren't where sin lies, but internal, which meant that foods are clean. The same can be said of clothing policies, the health code, etc.. Sin lives in the heart, and unless you think it's wrong, marks on your skin generally aren't going to taint your heart.
What are his views on heroin?
It's clean as long as it's outside you?
He never addressed heroin in particular, but the Bible does say not to get drunk, and I'd imagine the same applies to getting high on other drugs.
Note: drinking alcohol is not a sin, but getting drunk is, probably because it's putting yourself in a state where you're way more likely to sin and have an "excuse" about it.
No, what are his views when he’s on heroin?
That's just it, 99% of them are ignored 😂
Ah yes, and you think you're better than everyone
I don’t think I’m better than anyone but I’ve never killed anyone or protected child rapists.
Probably the same for most religious people too
Every Christian implicitly gives support to child molestation.
With that logic, who know what atrocity you're "implicitly supporting"?
Easy to find out, ask what groups they support and consider themselves part of then look at the atrocities of the groups, funny how Christians cry persecution for standards that should be applied equally.
Two words, I know they are kind of big so read them slowly.
READING COMPREHENSION.
Sir_Simon_Spamalot was clearly implying that by mugmoor's "logic" they also give implied to support to some organization that has committed an atrocity at some point.
Do you eat food from a store? I bet that store carries Nestle products. Those stores help Nestle put money in their pockets. Nearly every grocery store and therefore food shopper must therefore "implicitly support" those atrocities.
In fact, it implies a stronger support, since OPs church definitely does not send money to the catholic church which mugmoor was actually talking about.
That almost as bad as Top Gear logic!
So by purchasing clothes you are supporting slavery?
