you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 104 points 6 months ago* (71 children)

In reality, I believe there are much greater, more important issues, such as justice, equality

mf saying they want to focus on equality while at the same time saying gay couples blessings, something that would bring EQUALITY, isn’t a priority… make it make sense 🤡

  • source
  • hideshow 71 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    Since the “they” modifies the church, that means the church is sinful? Agreed. In that case, what…Christians support the paedophiles, not the paedophilia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (19 children)

    Apologies for playing grammar games, but I will absolutely condemn your bigoted ideas.

    The church, as with most people, does not separate people from their sexuality. The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is disingenuous at best, allowing hatred to continue, but with the thin veneer of civility that makes the bigots feel comfortable in their smug judgement. That is 100% garbage and you and I both know this.

    Stop defending inhumane institutions and be a better person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    Repeating the lie does not make it true. I've seen Christian "love" in action. Much of the time it is two-faced, disingenuous, and conditional. Not all Christians are like this of course, but enough are that it's become a standard.

    Perhaps you are a good person who just happens to swallow the lies of religion. I know people like that as well - people who are good not because of their religious upbringing but in spite of it. I hope some day you realise you have it within you to be more moral, kind, and accepting than the religious organisation you follow. And to do it without them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Literally said "not all Christians" but my point still stands. And I have better things to do than visit a religious institution I don't respect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    I hate the institution for enabling by design bad actors throughout its entire history. Any good it does or has ever done can be handled as well, if not better, by secular organisations.

    Those "few" people aren't just two-faced congregants. They are the people who hide sexual predators within church ranks, people who impose their beliefs on others, traumatise patients outside Family Planning, lobby to divert public funds away from public education in order to funnel it into churches where there is no accountability for how funds are spent, etc.

    Catholicism is the largest, richest paedophile ring in the world, insulated by generations of power and wealth. Southern Baptism spreads bigotry and white nationalism. Prosperity gospel preys on the poor and desperate. Religion enables so much suffering and all it offers is the promise that if you give it your money and time in this world, you'll get it all back AFTER YOU DIE. What kind of ridiculous claim is that? If all the riches are to be found after death, why does the church need so much money and devotion? It's a parasite, full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    You are absolutely divorced from reality aren’t you. Side note: Look up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    The foundation of christianity is lying to control people.

    I don't care what flavor the poison is, it is still poison.

    You think the prosperity gospel and southern baptism is wrong, but your interpretation is correct? How do you verify?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Well, Jesus Christ gave the keys of heaven to Saint Peter or Cephas (rock). Saint Peter was the first pope.

    It is not

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    How do you verify?

    The quran makes a lot of baseless claims, too. Are those all true? How do you know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The Quran breaks the natural law so it is false

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    So does the bible, depending on who gets to define "natural law".

    Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.

    How do you know the creator is yahweh and not allah?

    How do you know satan didn't write the bible?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    And it was still wrong. You'd think your all knowing god would know that if he's such a moral peraon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Motality standards do evolve - with human society. If your god was all-knowing and benevolent maybe he could have set that precedent early on instead of allowing slavery to continue literally to today.

    You're claiming your god decided "nah jk bro slavery isn't cool I was just joshing ya" at about the same time humanity did? What is he even good for? And why does he need you making excuses for him? Kick that bum to the curb. He's not worth your time, let alone your worship.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Was it ever good to own slaves? How could it be?

    Yet your god supposedly told his people that beating your slave is A-OK, even if they don't get up for a couple of days, as long as they don't die immediately.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (44 children)

    They believe marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation, which is their little loophole. They’re so weird about it that I’m surprised they’ve never pushed fertility tests as a pre requisite before allowing a marriage ceremony.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    Bats are birds, as per the Bible. Donkeys talk, as per the Bible. Slave owning is cool as long as you don’t beat them to death, as per the Bible.

    There’s plenty of stuff in the Bible that’s utter garbage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (18 children)

    In order: Leviticus 11:19

    2 Peter 2:16 & Numbers 22:28

    Exodus 21:20-21

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    Bats don't belong on that list.

    As for talking donkeys, you can't bring obvious fiction or superstition into the real world by proclaiming "MIRACLE". That's now how reality works.

    And "hey the slave didn't die so by all means carry on owning another human being as property" is not the moral flex you think it is.

    You haven't proven the bible is accurate or moral. You've only proven that you are brainwashed by your religion into justifying atrocities and need to work on bettering yourself.

    Finally, why are you explaining your holy book? A book that supposedly contains the infallible word of a god should not need mere mortals to explain it. God should have hired a holy ghost writer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (13 children)
    1. Choose your own translation doesn't matter if the "word of god" is so malleable.
    2. Nope.
    3. Cop out. Jesus said he wasn't there to invalidate the old stuff.
    4. I'm not your dictionary.
    5. Did not make that claim.

    Bonus 6. I'm tired of you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    You haven't provided proof, only claims. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, juat disappointed that some people are so credulous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Dude. The shroud of Turin was a known fake in the 1300s when it was made. The church decided to adopt it anyway because it was a great money maker with tourists, even though according to your other reply they don’t mix money and faith. I do love that you lead with the most thoroughly debunked religious fraud in Christian history as your strongest evidence though. That genuinely gave me a laugh.

    Witnesses are notoriously unreliable and easily swayed. And you never said witnesses of what. Just vague “miracles” of the trust-me-bro variety? Which Roman officials? Were the letters corroborated by contemporary evidence and writings from reliable scholars?

    Magic does not exist. Ghosts and the Easter Bunny are fake too, sorry to ruin that for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    There you go trying to explain and rationalise the divine words of your infallible god. So why even include the Old Testament? If Jesus “fulfilled” it like an Amazon order, it’s over. Stop using it to judge people. No more Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, Proverbs…

    Christians hate being reminded that the Old Testament is just Torah fanfiction, so you should be happy to lose that stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Or a man and his many wives? Including slaves?

    The bible is human bullshit. It exists to normalize abuse. You took the bait and we all suffer for your failing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago*

    Then they should dissolve their marriages once their children move out, having fulfilled its only purpose. Staying married after you’re done having kids is lust, pride, and vanity.

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    If they truly believe that then why are they all celibate? They are chalk full of pedophiles too. Why I hate any post praising the pope. Fucker also lives like a king. Wonder how many of the popes are pedophiles themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Priests cannot marry. Marriage and the Priesthood (Holy Orders) are the only sacraments that are mutually exclusive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Eastern Catholic priests can marry, actually. There are married Catholic priests out there right now, and not because they converted in from Anglicanism after they married (though those exist, too), but fully cradle Catholics who were married before their vocation. Somehow this has not exploded the church or whatever. It is inconsistent and ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Had never heard of that before, thanks for the info

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    This is one of those pieces of info I try to slip in whenever possible. I'm a firm believer that celibacy is bad for the mind, body, and soul when it's forced on people. Priests may go into it willingly, but years and years of it with no reprieve does bad things to people's minds. If the church could make one reform that I genuinely believe would be best, it is the celibacy of clergy. Tons of reforms needed, but that one is the one I think needs to happen soonest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    The actual reason is because the church was protecting its assets from the priests. Back then, priests were very powerful members of local government and controlled a large percentage of the wealth in an area. If they could get married and had kids, their kids would inherit the wealth they accumulated instead of that wealth going to the church.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Historically the priesthood/other holy orders was a place to toss the weird people or undesirable heirs. It was a convenient way for the gay uncle to have a respectable job and explain why they didn't have a wife. It was also a way to keep pedo types isolated but productive, at least until resources led to many orders dissolving.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    They don't believe that. They just say that. It'd be crazy if they actually believed it. Any reasonable person knows it's just bad faith rhetoric, not a true belief.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    Having been raised in the faith (I’ve walked away for a multitude of reasons) I assure you they do believe it. You’re not even allowed to take contraceptives or have a vasectomy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    If that actually were the belief, sterile people would not be allowed to be married, and people's marriages would be annualled when they become sterile, through age or otherwise. Unless they're asking for these, they do not believe it. They may believe that they believe it, but they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They say those things are god’s will and thus not an issue. They leave the door open for “miracles” to occur.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Again, I'm reasonably certain they don't actually believe a 90 year old woman is suddenly going to get pregnant, or a woman who doesn't have a uterus anymore, or whatever else. These might be the words they're told to repeat to justify things, but they don't believe them. Not even the most devout would believe that.

    They may believe God could technically do this, but then he could also technically do the same for same sex couples. He's omnipotent, according to them, after all. His powers are not limited to only making miracles pregnancies to hetero couples. It's no more outrageous than expecting people physically incapable of becoming pregnant becoming pregnant. If they justify this belief based on miricles, then same sex marriage is equally justified. (This is not their belief. They don't believe the former premise, but this is the conclusion that it'd lead to.)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)