Southern Baptists vote to advance a formal ban on churches with women pastors
7d 37m ago by lemmy.world/u/LuminousLuddite in news from apnews.com
Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
It's very difficult to progress as a nation when you have millions of people who refuse to enter the 21st century.
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?
Protestants do not have a pope-equivilant to keep all of the sects in line
Islam has sheikhs and such who make decrees, but Islam is also very sectarian so you're not gonna get universal agreement
I see, thank you, I do admit I'm not super knowledgeable about that. That makes sense, what I was trying to get at before was that it didn't seem like Islam had such a thing. I know that holy wars have been going on for centuries and the current ones aren't anything new just different circumstances. I wish religions could live together in peace and I don't see how obliterating each other helps anyone's cause. The people fighting wars in the name of religion are all just bastardizations anyways, most people are just trying to get by and want peace. That goes for everyone of course.
The billions of moderate Muslims...
Like, you realize that there's a lot of different types just like Christianity and they're all over the planet, right?
The vast majority are pretty chill.
Hell, Iran in the 70s was super progressive until capitalist overthrew their democracy and installed religious extremists.
Most countries ruled by Muslim extremists were put in place by "Christian nations".
Do you know anything about this?
Why are you so angry and judgy? Why would I want to talk to you about anything? No thanks.
I should honestly copy and paste this comment in so many situations. A vegan flipped out on me yesterday for literally just challenging an absolute statement they made. I should've just responded how you did.
I know the feeling, I spent way too much time before with that then I realize, I don't want to do this, why am I defending myself so much all the time against angry people who don't know me and are missing my point? I don't even like to argue. Sometimes it feels like Lemmy/Piefed is some kind of psy op to make the left into intolerant assholes as much as the right.
Exactly! So many users act like they've been watching you do horrible things for years, based on one comment they didn't even understand. And if you try to explain what you meant, nope you're lying, they know you better than you do. Good on you for not taking the bait.
My blocklist is way longer than it would be in a semi-sane world...
I just hope others are doing the same and then maybe we can have a bit more of an open discussion without people have a fear of people jumping down their throats for opening their mouths.
Talk about kettle calling the pot black!
Yes I know I've been an asshole in the past and I fully admit to that, I've mentioned it several times and it's in my profile as well. I am trying to be more hopeful, positive, and have better interactions, as such, I'm trying to avoid negative interactions. I am sorry if I was a jerk to you. I'm working on it.
I'm not the person you were originally conversing with, but I appreciate this comment. I really relate to what you describe. If someone was to look over my profile now, they'd see someone who is broadly quite helpful and wholesome in their interactions. However, my default mode used to be "abrasive arsehole", both online and in-person. Even besides the impact that had on other people, it made my head an unpleasant place to be, and so I put a lot of work into changing that.
It took a while (and I still sometimes slip into my old ways), but it gradually got easier, and I've found that I'm way more likely to have productive and meaningful discussion with folks online, as well as having the wisdom and restraint to step back from negative stuff. I think it's especially tricky online, because it's so easy to end up getting pulled into negative stuff, and it can feel like it's impossible to have good faith discussions online. I don't think that's true — however, online communication does demand we put extra effort in if we want to avoid slipping into those harmful patterns.
I'm glad to see that you're working on it, and I wish you luck in your quest.
Thank you for acknowledging it and for sharing your experience, I really am. We're all flawed humans of course. I'm glad that you have been able to work on yourself in that regard as well, I think overall we're all a bit guilty of it at some point, sometimes people just want to get into a fight to prove something to themselves or someone or the world and it has nothing to do with what they are saying. I've found I have a very low confidence in myself and as such I was always trying to prove something. Now I am much happier with the person I am and I have nothing to prove to anyone. I just need to work on letting go of some past tensions and old habits. But again, don't we all.
WTF? Where do you see anything remotely angry or "judgy"??? (That's not even a word, are you 8?)
Not OP, but, your comment came off as pretty abrasive and presumptuous.
Damn, basically everyone I know is secretly an 8 yo
Yeah, Christianity is circling the drain and as more leave, they just get more repugnant which drives out even more people
Are you advocating that atheists pretend to believe...?
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)
Although that was the case until around before covid
Buddy...
It was the case for virtually all of known human history...
Do you really think it was just the scientists like Da Vinci who pretended?
Most people pretended, and that kept true believers from acting crazy. They followed common sense rules that kept people alive and the people running the show knew it was just boogeymen for the greater good.
The problem is you have no idea what timeline the discussion you jumped into was and you won't even ask.
Have fun with that, but don't expect any more elaborations.
Most people pretended, and that kept true believers from acting crazy.
It sure as shit did not.
That's what I said, before COVID. After that they decided not to bother anymore.
Although this is mainly western society pre-constantine. In places like Asia and the Arab world there was no advantage in pretending, quite the opposite. So it's more pure there.
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?
Post-Nixon, the Conservatives have been actively and openly calling to destroy the Republic so they wouldn't be accountable like Nixon was. Regan was just first on that list.
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.
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.
I mean, it didn't really work out for Jesus either...
Why would you meet people who think a book that says slavery is OK and gay people should be stoned to death halfway?
Yes, the bible also says good things. That is an objective fact. But if I were to publish a book that tells people that we should love one another and also that christians should be stoned to death, would you meet me halfway?
You don't have to do anything, but you're not going to make a lot of progress being actively hostile to people.
Being hostile to a shitty book is not the same thing as being hostile to people.
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.
“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.
you wanna get into even more cursed territory?
Trinitarian Christians- which is the vast majority of Christians- believe Jesus is and always has been god. So Jesus raped Mary.
I don't think they thought the whole trinity thing through.
And telling people to free their slaves is heavily implied by the "give up everything you have and follow me" thing.
To whom or what were the possessions given up?
The rest of the community. Things that couldn’t be brought with (or weren’t needed,) were sold.
Things that couldn’t be sold were abandoned.
Jesus never called for slaves to be freed; because he saw it as normal and acceptable (and probably even “good”). Which is why the best you’ve got is “it’s implied in this thing in which it was never actually implied.”
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.
Actually, worshipping other gods was a massive deal breaker... The idea makes up like 3 out of the 10 commandments
The commandments are nullified by the pork exclusion clause
??
The old testament had a prohibition on pork. The new testament doesn't exactly end it, but effectively says you won't go to hell for things so inconsequential.
Realistically, the same lines christians use to justify eating pork can be used to disregard anything in the old testament.
Ok
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.
Especially since early Christianity saw Hell as a freezing cold place, not a fiery inferno. That imagery didn't come along until much later when Dante's Inferno was written.
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.
You either didn't read all of it. or you didn't understand it. Are there parts where things sound nice and kind and gentle? sure. But even Hitler occasionally advocated for social responsibility and communal welfare and I don't think anyone here would disagree on how fucking evil Hitler was. Don't just read the nice, lovey-dovey parts like "love your neighbor" and ignore the fact that Jesus literally had more to say about paying fucking taxes than slavery and saw people selling animals for sacrifice outside the temple and got pissed off despite slavery being- in my mind at least- far worse an institution and also a thing he'd have encountered near daily.
Lets start with an easy one: Mathew 28:18-20.
18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Theocratic Authoritarianism. Weee.
And what did jesus teach them? the law of Moses (Mathew 5:17-20:
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
So if you don't obey the shit he taught....you're not getting into heaven. Where do people who don't go to heaven go? Hell. Fire. eternal torture.
"well yeah, but they're awful people..." you might say... yeah. Awful people who... wear blended fabrics and eat pork or shellfish or, uh. stuff... I mean there's worse there. Like people who don't stone unruly children
the authoritarian nature of Jesus is self-apparent, and the consequences of ignoring anything are fucking psychotic... And lets be clear: the thing Jesus claimed to "fulfill" was the messianic prophecies
according to the messianic prophecies, jesus would have been expected to:
- Be a king in the Line of David (which is how the messiah restores the throne of david and such,)
- Bring all of the exiled diaspora back home. (didn't do that. details.)
- Restore the religious courts and adherence to Mosaic law*, end wickedness/sin/heresy,
- Restore services in the Temple (worship, sacrifices, etc.)
- Rebuild Jerusalem
*At the time of Jesus in the early first century, jews understood the Roman occupation in the context of the exilic period. which they understood to have been a punishment for breaking the mosaic covenant. After the exile is over, they're allowed to go back and such like. Then the romans come along, kick their ass in war, and oppress the shit out of everyone around there. There's a sort of angst against the Pharisees who taught adherence to something called the Oral Law, or the Tradition of the Elders, which is a sort of updated version of the "written" law. Some things were dropped (stoning children for disobedience was severely restricted), some things were added (ritual cleansing of hands before eating,). you can see some of that in Mark 7 when Jesus was beefing with Pharisees and their followers. Jesus and people of that bend see it as punishment for stepping away- because in their Iron Age understanding, the only reason their all-powerful god would allow that is if it was angry with them for something... and uh... go read Deuteronomy 28.
as far as my claims about the Messiah being a military leader... he's supposed to bring "security" to Israel... defeat their oppressors, and such like that only happens with a military campaign. for example, Zechariah 14. (i'm snipping the unimportant bits.)
9And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one.
... 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
... 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. 15And a plague like this plague shall fall on the horses, the mules, the camels, the donkeys, and whatever animals may be in those camps.
... 16Then 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.
As for the rest of us being enslaved? yeah. That's because of how the ancient israelites were instructed- by god- to prosecute a war. (Deut 20, again, kinda reformating it.)
10“When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11 If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. 12 But if it does not accept your terms of peace and makes war against you, then you shall besiege it, 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your plunder the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.
15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of these nations here.
16 But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17 Indeed, you shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods and you thus sin against the Lord your God.
Is it really so surprising that christian nationalists (and Israelis,) are so cool with genocide? I mean. really. And I know, you're brain is probably hissing and screaming right now. something like "that was just for coming into the Promised land"... but there's also the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15(centuries after the offense, by the way. which. uh. didn't actually happen.), the Midianites in Numbers 31, too. Part of it, is that this is just how war was conducted. Everybody, not just the Israelites, were genocidal assholes that would enslave entire populations.
And Jesus taught all of that.
Or more directly, are the words of Jesus, in mat 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell" not the the words of a psychotic fucker and a threat. Particularly as Jesus claimed to be that very person? "don't be afraid of them. Be afraid of me." totally pacifist.
Damn. You brought the receipts for that one!
Mic. Drop.
The more I've been listening to discussions about the rest of the cult's book, the more evil it shows itself to be.
Most people want to be good. Many Christians want to be good, but they're doing it in spite of their book, not because of its teachings.
I was surprised to see that you were getting downvoted so heavily despite being completely correct.
Some people really don't like to hear that shit I guess.
I'm a fervent anti religion.
But your arguments are your own interpretations of the passages that you quoted. And I gotta say, it's just as bad as the interpretations of the Christian nationalists.
I didn't even interpret these passages in the same way you did. I see them as plain metaphors.
And to say that this is directly connected to what's happening with Christian nationalism and zionism, that's a bit much. There are way more Christians and Jewish people globally that reject these movements and denounce them as nothing more than a misinterpretation to fit a violent narrative.
I'm saying it's unsurprising that christian nationalism crops up because Jesus- the figure head and literal christian god claimed to be a judean monarch and was himself authoritarian in nature.
That there's other people who chose to ignore that doesn't mean I'm wrong about Jesus saying some abhorent shit.
If you ignore all the awful shit Hitler said, you'll find there's a few times he talked about communal welfare and social responsibility in a way that isn't entirely offensive. The difference here is that we don't literally ignore all the awful shit Hitler said and recognize him as an utterly vile example of human awfulness.
For example, In Mark 7 and Mathew 15, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for not stoning disobedient children. Do you think it's appropriate to kill children who disobey their parents?
So you're saying Hitler was right????
I'm kkidding!!!
It's all good. I get your point. Maybe you interpret it that way. Maybe it was just a metaphor. But the truth, really, is that the English translation is a translation of a translation of old English of a translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation and it might even go beyond all that. It could have been a story ripped off of another story, etc.
But the core principle is, like I said, to have empathy and to be nice to each other. This has always been the message.
But the truth, really, is that the English translation is a translation of a translation of old English of a translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation and it might even go beyond all that. It could have been a story ripped off of another story, etc.
I just want to touch on this... because for most modern translations, this is not the truth. As an example, the NSRVue is effectively based three sources:
- Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
- The Septuagint
- the UBS greek new testament.
The BHS is a sort of compendium of all the old manuscripts and fragments more or less patched together into a cohesive edition. It's not a translation, it's still in the original Hebrew, and is roughly consistent.
The Septuagint is used for the christian apocrypha because we don't have original-language manuscripts for them... which is one of the reasons they're considered apocryphal (another being that they're sometimes just batshit crazy)
The NT was originally written in Koine Greek, and the UBS is the gold standard for those original manuscripts. So they use that. (i believe we're on the sixth update to that? things change as we find more manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts.)
If you pull out whatever bible you use, it should have an introduction explaining what the original materials were found, choices were made in that selection, and the translation philosophy they used to translate it. for the NRSVue, you can find that here, even though it's revision of the NRSV (which I can't find the intro to, grrr.) You'll also note they tell you who comissioned it, who over saw it, and how the editorial process went. (IIRC, there's resources where you can see the arguments for changes, but that could be for a different version and the reasoning for it, or against it.)
While there are old translations that don't always use good translation philosophies... modern translations have a great deal more scrutiny and reliability. They're still going to be updating and improving those translations- in part because we're still finding new manuscripts, and also in part because languages are constantly changing. As an example, when Isaiah was translated into the Septuagint, the greek word 'Parthenos' just meant 'young woman'. by the time the authors of mathew were rummaging around looking for things they can wedge jesus into... 'parthenos' became 'virgin'. We have the same kind of shifting use of language, too.
Generally, most modern translations are going to be reasonable to just trust that when they translate the words of Jesus, the meaning isn't somehow being perverted. as I side note, I'm just using NRSVue as the example because it's what I generally use myself.
But the core principle is, like I said, to have empathy and to be nice to each other. This has always been the message.
And then there's the "or else". which kinda sours me on the "be nice" part. Like. mat 25:31-46. On the surface, this sounds cool right? But...Jesus is an all powerful and all knowing being (at least according to the trinitarian view,) who absoultely could have, when he created the world, created the world in such a way where it was unnecessary because destitute people simply don't exist. Or baring that for some bullshit reason, absolutely could have fed everyone and clothed everyone and gave everyone shelter... and didn't.
and in that same passage, Jesus is saying that he will throw people who may or may not have the capacity to do so, into the eternal torture of hell, for not doing the same thing he did not do, but- according to himself- had the power to do.
People are people, and everyone is some sort of chaotic mix of good and bad tendencies. We're complicated like that. I'm not saying Jesus is all-evil. I suspect he was- mostly- just a typical guy for his time and place. the 'mostly' is because pharisees felt that maybe we shouldn't stone teenagers for being, you know, typical angsty teenagers and he was. (he's referencing Deut 21:18-20 here. My opinion of him is that he was an iron-age fundamentalist trying to bring back a bronze-age legal code. and there's tons of baggage there that we just don't talk about.
Ok bro. I don't know if this is an AI generated response or you're autistic, but this is too long. I'm not going to read all of this. I'm sorry.
And the part about "be a good person OR ELSE"? Like that's a bag thing? Honestly if that can scare some motherfuckers into doing good, there's nothing wrong with that.
If you can’t see why an eternal and unending punishment is not just, I really hope you don’t have kids.
Especially because Jesus tells you to stone them when they get into the teenage-angsty phase. (Or else)
Also don’t wear blended fabrics. (Or else)
Don’t eat the wrong kind of food. (Or else.)
Mutilate the dicks of your infant sons. (Or else.)
If a punishment doesn’t fit the crime, the punishment is unjust. And eternal torment cannot eve or be appropriate for a finite crime.
That's all in the old testament. It's not what Jesus advocated.
And you need to take a chill pill. We're on the same side of the fence here. We just disagree on each other's interpretation of the story of Jesus.
Tell me. What does it mean when he says “have not come to abolish the law or the prophet's”…?
Does that mean he came to abolish?
It certainly doesn’t.
Indeed he goes on to say that not one letter, not one jot from the law will fall away.
According to Jesus, there is no “new covenant”.
You’re not arguing with me. You’re arguing with the words of Jesus himself
Ok dude.
Get a life.
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:
17Thus 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? 18On that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel, says the Lord God, my wrath shall be aroused. 19For in my jealousy and in my blazing wrath I declare: On that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; 20the 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. 21I will summon the sword against Gog[e] in all my mountains, says the Lord God; the swords of all will be against their comrades. 22With 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. 23So 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
11Now many nations
are assembled against you,
saying, “Let her be profaned,
and let our eyes gaze upon Zion.”
12But 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.
13Arise 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
12This 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. 13On 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; 14even Judah will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations shall be collected: gold, silver, and garments in great abundance. 15And a plague like this plague shall fall on the horses, the mules, the camels, the donkeys, and whatever animals may be in those camps.
?16Then 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. 17If 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. 18And 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. 19Such 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.
You don’t get to claim that a book is the word of god with binding commandments and then say that the book is incomplete and subject to interpretation.
Which book?
I can't tell if you're being rhetorical. There's many books like this...
Isn’t that a clue that they’re all bullshit and shouldn’t be heeded?
If it worked that way, we'd be ignoring sciences too. Unfortunately the only way is through good old-fashioned critical thought, which is difficult when "spread the word" is baked in.
Citing any religious text as though it holds value is reserved only for fools. There is a reality that doesn't change regardless of whether religious texts align to it or not, which makes their contents historically interesting but ultimately weightless, worthless.
Edit: my line of questioning was too harsh. But gosh I really don’t even get what you’re trying to imply about intellectual reasoning.
If it worked that way, we'd be ignoring sciences too.
Can you expand on this? That’s a pretty unhinged thing to say. Do you believe that there is One Godly Scientist that writes all Scientific Texts? Is The Scientific Man Who Writes All Scientific Texts in the room with us right now?
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.
"BUT BUT PAUL SAID!"
Paul disagrees with Jesus. so if you follow Jesus, then Paul is a heretic. Mathew 5:17-20 makes that exceptionally clear- the law of moses as written is to be in force until the earth itself passes away.
I've not mentioned Paul because he's fucking irrelevant to what JESUS says. But of course you want to dodge to that. Not that it particularly makes things better. Paul was the kind of ass who sent a ran-away slave back to his owner so that the owner could give him back to Paul as a servant. Paul doesn't overturn slavery either- and indeed tells slaves to obey their masters. He tells women to obey their husbands and be silent in church. None of this is particularly new or revalatory.
"But they were disciples!"
All a disciple was, is a follower. The women of influence in the bible were largely (rich) people with houses that the early church met at. and while bringing religious affairs into homes like that did give women more access and influence, "WOMEN BE SILENT" is Paul's instruciton. Details suck, amirite?
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.
the definition of fascism:
1: a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Mussolini wasn't the first authoritarian autocrat to exist. Jesus himself says that:
- he is god.
- all authority comes from god (him)
- he is the messiah - who:
3.2) Is a king of the line of david.
3.3) that would defeat all of Israel's enemies
3.4) and institute mosiac law on a global scale
3..5) through military force. - that he would personally judge everyone and throw everyone who didn't bow down and follow him into hell.
Yeah. Seems pretty fascist to me. Most societies back then were pretty fascist and that sometimes gets glossed over. Particularly when people today want to justify following some dude's iron age fundamentalist yearnings for bronze age legal codes.... details, amirite?
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.
I'm curious as to why I should consider the teachings of Mohamed when talking about the teachings of Jesus?
Explain that to me. Should I also go to the Buddha, as well? Hell. why don't we go to the shamanism found in central America? or maybe the Sentinel Islanders, who I'm sure have some thoughts...
Nice distraction. As for not including judaic literature... I have been indirectly this entire time. If you don't like the NSRVUE translation of that literature, would you prefer the JPS? you can find it at Sefaria.org. Given that the topic is Christianity, though, I'd just as soon not put in that work. You're welcome to cite that if you think you'll find something relevant.
You're definitely a former Christian. Maybe Jewish Either way you were a suburban warrior and that "training" disallows you from being subjective.
Or I'm completely wrong and you just somehow naturally landed in your pile of bullshit lol.
I encourage more reading.
Your concept of Fascism is almost insulting to the concept of rationales. You can link whatever Googled output you want, but it won't change the fact that the guy literally invented it, wrote books and essays about it, and absolutely none of it has anything to do with what you're talking about. It is as fallacious as cclaiming the ocean is the sky because it too is blue.
I’m incablemof being subjective?
What does that even mean?
Did you mean “objective”?- ie, that I can’t look at things without my personal bias?
Cuz I’d agree with that I can’t be objective- and yes, I’m considering it all from my personal subjective understanding.
As for “Mussolini invented fascism” … that’s a bit naive. Actually, that’s very naive. Yeah he named what we fascism today. He started the first National Fascist Party in Italy, too.
his fascism was a blend of nationalism, populism and extreme authoritarianism.
Now let’s consider that blend in the context of Jesus.
Claiming to be the messiah- a king of the line of David, who would defeat military enemies of Israel and liberate the oppressed Israelites and institute the theocratic monarchy, and lead that theocratic monarchy to control the entire world- means he’s very fucking nationalist.
He claims all authority comes from god. And that be is god, and that disobedience leads to death and eternal torture… he’s extremely fucking authoritarian.
His views of liberating the oppressed and uplifting the destitute; against the uncaring, immoral elite (Pharisees) who led the Jewish people away from the Law, and caused god to be angry with them and who allowed the Roman’s to oppress them in punishment.
So yeah. The term applies, even if it’s uncomfortable to admit, even if it’s anachronistic, does that change that the two have very similar commonalities?
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.
Batshit crazy suicidal death-cult shit.
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?
No one who would ascend to the kingdom escapes the fiery lashes.
That is NOT what they were saying.
I'm sure it wasn't. Abysmal state of affairs.
How to foster a victim mentality 101 right there.
Are you trying to defend the chapter or something? Curious what a sword is supposed to be used for beyond violence, but sure ok.
Abrahamic religions will keep women under their boot as long as they exist.
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?
That's why you marry someone you love and enjoy being around. You commit yourself to them.
Right, so it doesn't matter how "easy" it is to separate.
Well, just say you did fall out of love or have an argument. For the sake of your children, you should remain together
That's psychologically harmful to kids.
Two mature adults getting along? Kids are forced to have those parents and their siblings as well. Don't see why husband and wife should be an exception
https://psychicare.com/should-you-stay-in-an-unhappy-marriage-for-kids/
Kids know when you're lying, by words, act, omission.
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
I'm not talking about indigenous religions here, I'm talking about Christianity. It forbids divorce equally whether it be a man or a woman who wishes to separate
It most certainly does not.
Divorce is equally prohibited.
1 Corinthians 7:10-14
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Paul goes out of his way to name both sexes.
What did Jesus say?
Edit to say: but if she does
You're really going out of your way to be wrong.
In the way it is written, the commandment applies to both. "And the husband should not divorce his wife..." Is basically an abbreviation for the previous point, the note still applies. Essentially it's like saying "the same applies for the husband".
Jesus actually applied it to men:
Matthew 5:31-32
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
And further on, His full teaching:
Matthew 19:3-9
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Perhaps this will help.
https://tewahedoperspective.blogspot.com/2025/02/marriage-from-ethiopian-orthodox_20.html?m=1
So...
?
You made up the “easy” part to make your absolute bullshit make sense in your head.
Not true. It depends on the sect.
It just so happens those sects are never the most populous or powerful 🤷🏼
Kind of like Shia aren't as numerous as Sunni. Surely there as no CIA interference...
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.
I can't help it if people have no curiosity outside what was exploited and taught. I understand it, though.
Wow I didn’t know the CIA was 2000 years old.
Well aren't you clever you be able to extrapolate.
Let's spell it out for this who aren't!
Governmental leaders, local authorities and their legal apparatchik were around back then. And if they couldn't intimidate the truth-tellers into silence, guess what else they did?!
Einstein 🤓
Local authorities and the clergy were the same people for most of the history you’re describing. Your statements make no sense. At least you were unjustifiably condescending about it though.
Local authorities and the clergy were the same people for most of the history you’re describing
No! 😯
🤣🤣🤣🤣
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...
Remember also the slavers gave slaves a different Bible than the slavers had, so slaves wouldn't get ideas.
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
Every time the Bible was translated, it was with unintentional errors and the political slant of the current ruler.
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.
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.
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
Me too. The only thing that stops me from vocally disliking religion in general is that this would include Islam and they're already persecuted enough
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
I vote to ban churches and all religious buildings.
Hell, ban religions. The world would be such a better place without the stoneage fairytales
Lets tax churches with more than 10 million dollars in assets.
Personally I don't mind them, I want them to pay taxes though especially the church itself. E.g. property, income(donations) and probably more.
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?
Just on Sundays sounds awfully regulated.
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!
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
Let's ban all ideologies.
"ban pronouns" energy here
more like ban anything and anyone who isn't a Nazi like "CanIFishHere"
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.
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.
Women constitute 50% of the population, yet they keep voting for conservative assholes that restrict their freedoms. Honestly as a man it just doesn't make sense
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.
It's sad, women have a lot of power to change the world into a more feminist one, but choose this path. A lot of this conservative alt right guys see women as lesser people.
I'm surprised Southern Baptists allowed women pastors in the first place.
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.
Welcome to Giliad. Blessed be the fruit, motherfuckers.
What's the point of having two catholic churches? This is removing the SB's only marketing niche.
Southern Baptists:
- full of pedophiles
- has women pastors
Catholic Church
- full of pedophiles
- no women priests
No no... the SBC has full on thinking slaves are a good thing so much so that's why they exist racism, that's their marketing niche.
Trad-wives speed running to Gilead
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.
This doesnt go far enough. They need to ban women and men!
Only spiritual entities that have ascended to a higher plane and propagate through dementional shifting.
Just like in the bible.
It should be only non-binary hermaphrodite asexuals allowed to spread the word of the lord, as they are the true form of the unsplit god.
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.
Probably more like 75%. There are many self hating gays that think banning it will "fix" them rather than living their best life
That are voting FOR this too. Smdh they are so brainwashed
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.
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/v2/da:true/resize:fit:878/0*QTq2n4OGOSbo_F5q
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)
know are morally wrong
How do you know something is morally wrong?
cf. other primates noticing injustice
There are some near-universals.
How do you measure justice?
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.
Blessed be the fruit.
oppressive banjo noises
"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.
That's what happens when 20+ books are excluded from the Bible.
You'd think that people who claim to love the Bible as much as the Southern Baptists do would relish the opportunity to have MORE Bible!
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.
Maybe they should ban Southern Baptists?
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.
I could get behind the idea of banning churches (in general).
Another reason to discredit Southern Baptists
No surprise from the southern traitors and the baptist heretics.
I vote to advance a formal ban on churches!
mask off. Bigots out here showing their true colours.
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.
Its not surprising to me at all. Christianity is a patriarchal religion the same way all Abrahamic religions are. It's like kind of the point.
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
Southern Baptists were formed to use God to justify slavery. No surprise that they continue to be disgusting people.
Not surprising at all tbh
If anyone is wondering which of the Christian denominations popular in the United States are less shitty, know that Mr. Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister...
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.
Are the cultists having another bad day? Too bad.
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.
Afraid of what they might preach?
Generally, if you're willing to throw the parts of the bible about not ordaining women out, then you're generally more willing to throw the whole thing out
expected that sooner.
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.
Can't say as I give two fucks what happens to the kind of women who would become Southern Baptist preachers.
Why are non southern baptist people getting pissed over what happens in the southern baptist convention? It literally doesn't affect you 😐
Because these are highly organized lunatics who vote.
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
Several reasons. First, humans have already decided that intentionally causing harm is not something we condone as a society, even under the guise of cultural or religious exemption. Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.
Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.
And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.
Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.
If you're vying for leadership, you are definitely there voluntarily.
Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.
That's a separate issue - here it seems people want to impose secular values on the way the Southern Baptists do things. You can't have it one way (In most cases, I do condemn the imposition of Christianity on the general secular public)
And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.
I agree to a point. I think it is okay for Christians to be involved in politics, and a lot of those Christians would have their opinions and views originate from their philosophy which is rooted in Christianity. So these will be ideals that life is sacred, that the marginalised and oppressed should be uplifted, that people should be forgiven, etc. However, I wouldn't see why things like adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, fornication or idolatry between consenting adults should be prohibited. If people want to be free to destroy themselves and make bad decisions, they have the right to do so as long as it isn't harming others
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.
Obey their husbands, yes. Doesn't have much to do with secular job roles
So if a husband were to say, "Baby, I'd like it if you stopped working as an accountant so that you could suck my dick more," ... and she's like "No," ... is she disobeying her husband?
The answer is yes. and I'm a little pissed that you don't see that.
Yes, I do see that, but that's within a marriage setting. Completely different to if a man she isn't married to refuses to hire her as an accountant because she's a woman.
yeah. he tells children to submit to parents, too.
At no point does Paul tell men to submit to women in the same way that he tells women to submit to men. Neither does he tell parents to submit to children.
Also there were very few women who were unmarried, culturally, at that time, the role of women were to mary and attend to their husband's house and raise their children. No where does he contradict that.
He doesn't tell women to submit to men, he tells wives to submit to their husbands. Both male and female children submit to their parents. Of course he doesn't tell parents to submit to their children, that's essentially lunacy.
Also there were very few women who were unmarried, culturally, at that time, the role of women were to mary and attend to their husband's house and raise their children. No where does he contradict that.
Generally it's traditionally believed that Mary Magdalene didn't marry. Consecrated virgins (nuns) were also a thing
Paul defends the decision of women not to marry
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
We know almost nothing about Magdalen, we neither know if she was or was not married, or a widow, neither do we know if she had a leadership role at all.
Remember “disciple” wasn’t a special position- it was just anyone who follows another. A disciple of Jesus was any of the hundreds or thousands. The 12 disciples and later 12 apostles were the leaders after Jesus.
As for Paul’s exhortation to unmarried women… how many women do you think never married?
Remember. They’re to obey their fathers. Who would be arranging marriages well before they reached marital age.
And then they’re married, they’re to obey their husbands. young girls were not making these decisions. Their parents were.
There’s still no verse where Paul says to obey women in the same way that women are to obey men. I’m sorry. Husbands are to obey wives in the same way wives are to obey husbands.
None.
And you understand why Paul was like that, right? They thought Armageddon was coming like in a year or two. Or sooner. Any day, really. (He just stopped for some milk!)
They thought there was no point in building a stable life because Jesus would come back do all the messianic stuff he failed to do the first time and then everything would be amazing.
Given that we’re still waiting, it’s probably a good thing for the early church they mostly ignored that.
Remember. They’re to obey their fathers. Who would be arranging marriages well before they reached marital age.
And then they’re married, they’re to obey their husbands. young girls were not making these decisions. Their parents were.
This didn't really happen in Christendom.
There’s still no verse where Paul says to obey women in the same way that women are to obey men. I’m sorry. Husbands are to obey wives in the same way wives are to obey husbands.
Husbands don't necessarily obey their wives in the same way. Husbands are given a greater task of "loving their wives as Christ loved The Church"
Ephesians 5:23-33
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
This definitely cannot be ignored, the implications of this command must be broken down.
Husbands are to serve their wives, not the other way around:
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Husbands are to be willing to die for their wives. Not just in taking a bullet - that's too easy - but dying to your own passions and desires everyday for the comfort of your wife - because you love her and do this out of love.
I should also emphasise the meaning of the word love here:
ἀγαπάω (agapos, verb for agape ἀγάπη)
This isn't the same word as sexual love (eros). In fact, it's basically exclusively used to describe the love that God has for us.
ἀγάπη is very sharply defined also:
1 Corinthians 13:1-13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
So it's not the secular view of a patriarchal system, but a self-sacrificing Christlike husband whom the wife trusts and obeys.
This didn’t really happen in Christendom.
Yes. It. Did.
In europe, arranged marriages were normal until ww2. The practice of arranging marriages didn't even begin to decline until the 17th century and marriage-for-love only became common after 2nd-wave feminism. the way we go about marriages today is very different than it was in the first century. neither the first century jews or gentiles (greek or roman) had what you describe.
Husbands don’t necessarily obey their wives in the same way. Husbands are given a greater task of “loving their wives as Christ loved The Church” (snip)
This definitely cannot be ignored, the implications of this command must be broken down.Husbands are to serve their wives, not the other
So. if obedience and love (or service, since you brought that up,) are the same and equivalent things... why make distinctions. Why not say "husbands obey your wives?"
Because love and obedience are different things. You can go to the greek, if you want. still different words. ὑποτάσσεται, is the word use- literally "subjected to" in 22 gets its verb from 21, "Being submissive". Two different words with two different meanings.
So yeah. seems very patriarchal to me. Jesus doesn't obey the chruch, or submit to the church. He commands it, and "the church" is to submit.
In europe, arranged marriages were normal until ww2
At least in the UK, that's just not true. It was a thing nobility did, but it anyone who wasn't generally married for love. Even the Bible documents marrying for love on separate occasions in old testament times.
So. if obedience and love (or service, since you brought that up,) are the same and equivalent things... why make distinctions. Why not say "husbands obey your wives?"
Service, obedience and love aren't the same things. A good policeman serves his community, but he doesn't submit to them. A lot of the time, service does involve hearing out their opinion, and loving them, but not submission. If two partners were to submit to each other, how does it work when the wife orders her husband and her husband orders her to not order him, in which she returns by ordering him to not order her to not order him, and so forth? Which one is in the right here?
So yeah. seems very patriarchal to me. Jesus doesn't obey the chruch, or submit to the church. He commands it, and "the church" is to submit.
Exactly. But he serves the Church by interceding for them, granting miracles, teaching them, and most of all, going through torture and pains, even that of death, to save them. He is patient and ever-forgiving with us. He doesn't forsake us no matter how much or how badly we screw up. And Husbands are ordered to do the same.
I'm not denying that this is patriarchal - there is an element of patriarchy to Christian families. But I wouldn't use the term patriarchy due to it's secular undertones where it's perceived that the man doesn't display Christ-like love for his wife. God laid out the structure that the husband is the head of the wife and that God is the head of the husband. Across the Bible, even by some extent in the book of Genesis, Marriage is depicted as a picture of Christ and His Church. That's what marriage is - it's a picture to show us our relationship to God. The Church is the Bride of Christ.
So British were… Christian now? Some were, sure. But only in the later first century.
Rome only invaded the isle in 40 c.e or so. Paul was on the other side of the world. He may have been “aware” that they existed, but he certainly wasn’t influenced by them. And frankly given how he didn’t write them any letters… I find that dubious.(he died around 65ad, and the letter furthest west was to Rome.)
Paul’s instruction to how women should behave in their daily lives is “wives, obey your husbands” and there’s no similar command to husbands to obey their wives , it’s inherently patriarchal.
You keep trying to say that’s okay because husbands are supposed to love their wives. But that’s not equality, it’s misogyny.
Remember, Paul also used the language of obedience and submission to slaves and masters. He also says that Christian’s are slaves to Christ (probably getting the idea from the mosaic covenant, where Israelites are slaves to god.)
The point being that relationship is inherently unequal. It’s patriarchal and misogynistic. It doesn’t matter if masters are to love their slaves or husbands love their wives.
“But I’m a kind master” doesn’t make owning slaves okay. “But I’m a loving husband” doesn’t make controlling and subjugating your wife okay.
Not in the modern era.
So British were… Christian now? Some were, sure. But only in the later first century.
Rome only invaded the isle in 40 c.e or so. Paul was on the other side of the world. He may have been “aware” that they existed, but he certainly wasn’t influenced by them. And frankly given how he didn’t write them any letters… I find that dubious.(he died around 65ad, and the letter furthest west was to Rome.)
You said "until WW2". Britain was Christian within that wide timeframe you provided. I know for a fact from my own family history that wasn't the case.
You keep trying to say that’s okay because husbands are supposed to love their wives. But that’s not equality, it’s misogyny.
It's not supposed to be equality by the white, western secular definition of it. A woman can also choose not to marry, as to which she'd be subject to the same authority structures as men. Marriage is choosing to submit to a man of your choice. The Bible and Christianity doesn't have to conform to 21st century white society. In fact, Christianity has basically always opposed society, everywhere and anywhere. In USA 'Republican' circles, it condemns their greed and selfish attitudes. In USA 'Democratic' circles, it condemns their fornication and rebelliousness. In China, they don't take issue with the views of marriage, but do take issue with the charitable aspects and demands of Christianity. At times in history Husbands didn't love their wives, at other times, wives didn't obey their husbands. There is no historical point in time or person other than Jesus where this has been practiced properly. In fact, men cannot be perfect like Jesus is, but it's what's expected of them. And this is all from the fall:
Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
He also says that Christian’s are slaves to Christ
I don't have an issue with this. Far better than the alternative - being a slave to Satan.
It doesn’t matter if masters are to love their slaves or husbands love their wives.
It definitely does matter.
“But I’m a loving husband” doesn’t make controlling and subjugating your wife okay.
A loving husband doesn't control and subjugate his wife. Your sentence here doesn't make any sense at all.
The Bible doesn't tell men to control and subjugate their wives. It tells them to love (agapos) them, lead them, and guide them.