Praise Be (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
emoji 2
 

all 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 9 months ago (2 children)

i mean, the catholics managed

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Numbers 31:17-18 KJV

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Numbers is good but for the very best ultra-violence I suggest Deuteronomy

    Deut. 21:18-21

    18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 93 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    Have you read the Bible? Harems, concubines, child brides, slavery, women shouldn’t speak, etc…

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    As a former evangelical Christian I can assure you that any average one of them can only be said to have read the bible in the same way that I could be said to have read my favorite cook book. If that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    That’s insightful, thank you.

    As someone who did read the full book years ago when going to school and remembers fuckall in it except how repetitive and boring the Old Testament was, this helps me understand their approach of picking and choosing scripture.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Ok, so what is the current canon?

    I don't think the new testament includes child diddling, but I didn't read much of that either.

    Probably because I lost faith quite some time ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Well, as I see it, evangelical Christianity has just about totally morphed into Christian Nationalism by now, and the canon for Christian Nationalism seems to essentially be Trump’s Truth Social feed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 84 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    The Republican party is not a monolith guys, it's made up of several distinct groups such as child rapists and child rapist enablers.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    Oh the regimes biggest protector of child raping scum are the Abrahmic religions including fundamentalists such as:

    • the Catholic church ran an industrial scale child raping, torture and incitement to suicide system. This pushing people to kill themselves was a key policy by the church leadership, to avoid paying compensation of their victims even after the raping priest has been imprisoned and guilt could not be mitigating

    suicides(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States

    "Church officials followed a "playbook for concealing the truth", minimizing the abuse by using words like "inappropriate contact" instead of "rape"."

    And that's with a head buried in the sand approach that US authorities take with religion ie it has to be so blatant and undeniable before they'll investigate.

    However from Ireland to Australia in those two countries alone the Catholics abused tens of thousands of children. There are as many or more cases in the US and yet its clear the authorities are happy to pretend otherwise.

    Worse the abuse and active protection and cover up went to the Cardinals themselves, both Cardinal Pell and Clancy were rapists and rape protectors.

    Southern Baptist Churches

    SBC's executive committee, detailing that SBC leaders had stonewalled and disparaged clergy sex abuse survivors for nearly two decades. It also listed the named cases that involved the admission, confession, guilty plea, conviction, judgement, sentencing and registered sex offenders. It did not include cases that did not relate to sexual abuse nor cases that ended in acquittal. The report listed more than 700 entries within the parameters

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Southern_Baptist_churches

    • extensive sexual abuse in Hasidic and Haredi jewisg cults

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Brooklyn%27s_Haredi_community

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(novel)

    The leadership of religiious organisation are devoid of the moral and ethical leadership their organisations claim is a God given.

    It is little surprise they are happily refusing to mount any meaningful protests against the Trump regime.

    Shit the the closes I've ever seen religious organizations protests the Trump regime was the grassroots spontaneous protest of various clergy in the Minneapolis to stop airlines from running ice deporting/transfer flights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    I honestly believe that the Catholic Church has been operating an intergenerational homosexual trafficking ring for centuries. Most, perhaps all, of the molesting priests were probably molested by priests themselves when they were very young, and like many abuse victims, grew up to be abusers themselves, using the same vehicle as their abusers - the Catholic Church itself.

    That's why the Church has always excused it and covered it up: it's literally a long-standing tradition, and a major recruiting strategy. You wouldn't have nearly as many priests if your only draw was celibacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    This is at least an area where I've seen improvement in many denominations. The Episcopal Church in particular has gotten pretty hard-nosed about its sex abuse training. I was volunteering for a food drive and they made me take a 6-hour course along with any other volunteers who hadn't been through it because children may be present and they have instituted strict rules.

    The training had video confessions of people who had used church activities as a way to become "trusted" sonthey could abuse children. They talked about what they did and how they used their positions of trust to grrom their victims (e.g. "accidentally" touching kids while playing to gauge their reactions).

    They then make crystal clear that the rules they have are not optional, or meant as an attack on the adults either. An adult roughousing with kids or talking with a distressed kid alone is most-likely not a rapist. We all understand that, so when someone says "hey - make sure to leave the blinds open with talking to Kelley" or "Steve - we can't play flag football with the kids" it isn't an accusation. It's a reminder that we're there for the kids and we all follow the rules so that if someone evil does show up they can't engage in probing through "harmless fun". If anyone can't respect those rules they're not allowed to participate.

    The one exception we had for the "no touching" rule when I worked for a Methodist church was for a specific teenager who was usually very sweet but had developmental issues that would occasionally lead to extreme behavior, including occasional violent outbursts. For him we had a few specific adults that had special training (and waivers) that were allowed to restrain him. We also made one of his parents accompany any activity he was involved with. I only had to physically intervene one time when we were bowling and he took a ball into the parking lot to attack cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Check out poor Lot whose evil daughters plot to get him drunk so they can rape him. The poor old man, I'm sure there was no redaction going on in post production.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Remember that he tried hand them over to a gang of would be angel-rapists, first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Instead of taking his virgin daughters, the mob wanted the men (angels). Pretty demoralizing for his daughters. Lot's daughter may be the first recorded femcels, which would explain their desperate attempt at getting pregnant by their father.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 103 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    Literally zero friction integrating pedophilia into traditional Christianity

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    literally zero friction

    There's a joke in there, but I'll go to Hell if I make it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    I mean, if the Evangelical Christians are going to Heaven - I’d rather go to hell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Also, if the Biblical god existed, supporting or worshiping it would be an incredibly immoral thing to do. Yahweh is perhaps the most vile and evil character in all of literature. It's hard to imagine anything more evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No need, it's already part of it and has been for centuries.

    Remember how the Catholic church raped kids and protected pedophiles? It's not just Catholicism.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    A lot of people don't know this but the Ghost that banged Mary was only 12.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (16 children)

    How old do you think the Virgin Mary was?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 9 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    There wasn't consent though. It can be spun that way, but biblically Mary was destined to carry, and screw any free will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Yes. it can absolutely be spun that way, as I said. As most anything in the Bible can be. Let me ask this then. Could she have said no? And when would that have happened?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I guess it's consent. The master/deity or their aide comes to the servant and tells them of master's will, the great plan. The servant says, yeah, okay.

    Yet another fail in writing. Why not make it so God and Gabriel give her the choice, and she adamantly agrees? Remove all doubt from the story's plot. Or better yet, add some drama, have Mary unsure, and Gabriel explains the importance (not that it's already planned, but why her choice is key to the direction of salvation and all that). And she with some thought decides to do it.

    Oh, right... that would give a woman some agency. Never mind.

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

    Mormons took that and really ran with it, as their a "Doctrine & Covenants" are much more blatant in support of rape. Joseph Smith told Emma Hale that God would destroy her for refusing to marry him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    How do they support rape? Or do you consider it rape of I tell I woman she'll go to hell if she doesn't consent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Because in D&C 132:54, Emma is threatened with destruction if she refuses. That's called rape by duress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    I believe they were already married for many years before that. The threat of destruction was if she didn't stay loyal to him in their marriage. She's specially mentioned because she was consistently against polygamy, so this is more accurately described as intimidation to stay married. It's a stretch to say it supports rape, no more than marriage itself is a social/legal pressure for those married to have sex with each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    They were not, and that's not what it says, but you're welcome to twist it however you like to believe differently - same as people do with the Bible.

    If someone came up to your mom/sister/daughter and said "There's a hidden sniper with his rifle trained on you right now. Marry me and stay loyal, or else he'll shoot you" then you wouldn't consider that to be rape? I most certainly would. Whenever you threaten someone with violence for refusing a sexual relationship, that is rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Section 132 was recorded in 1843 and they were married in 1827. This is not a matter of interpretation. You're just flat wrong.

    By your logic, all sex in Christian marriages is rape. After all, they're all taught the threats God made against fornicators, thus they've been groomed under duress into marriage.

    You can go with that logic, and it's not necessarily wrong. It just muddies what rape is into something meaningless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    You're wrong, actually. Joseph and Emma Smith were married in 1844. You're probably thinking of when he took her as a concubine.

    No, all sex in Christianity doesn't have God telling women who specifically they must marry and "cleave unto" (spread their legs) - only Mormons have such a vile religion.

    Stop spreading misinformation. It's very clear Mormons worship rapists - they supported the current rapist in the White House at a higher proportion than any other denomination. It's just who they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    "Well God can use 'imperfect people'. Just look at King David."

    How that story actually went...


    David: Has an affair with Bathsheba and has her husband assassinated.

    God: "Listen here you little shit. I gave you everything you could ever want and you decided that wasn't enough. I'm feeling merciful so I won't kill you like you killed Uriah. Instead, you can spend the rest of your miserable life suffering the consequences of your evil deeds."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    Pedophilia has always been a part of Christianity. Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Joesph was in his 70s. It's the basis of the religion. At least Christianity tries to hide it by pretending that she was virgin and her child was actually from god. That's better than, say, islam, where mohammad just outright marries Aisha when was 6 years old and pretended that allah told him its halal.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It's very unlikely Joseph was in his 70s. Neither of their ages are mentioned. Common estimates for Mary are 13-14, and Joseph being in late teens or early 20s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Why are you acting like that is better?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Yes, but Marry technically didn't get diddled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Not by Joseph, but someone diddled her and he's allegedly much older.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I had a Catholic education and it's the first time I've heard this about Mary's age, are those ages actually in the scriptures/Koran?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    I don't know anything about Mary in the Bible but yes Aisha was definitely 6 when she was married according to the Koran, Muslims don't deny it. They just do a bunch of mental gymnastics to explain how that's somehow okay. Usually involving the fact that he waited until she was 9 to consummate the marriage, how noble and considerate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Yes, the sahih hadiths explicitly state that mohammad married Alisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9.

    This marriage was justified in the quran via a verse 65:4, which virtually all the credible islamic tafsirs agree that it justifies child marriage and pedophilia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That doesn't make any sense. Morality is not something that was given by Gods, but something we have invented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Morality and legislation used to be entirely justified by being the word of God. Not that long ago (enlightenment) we started making those decisions based on what we think is a good idea. That's basically what Nietzsche was talking about when saying "good is dead", he didn't mean that literally...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Pedophilia is already part of the Bible, is it not?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago*

    Tbh theres pedophilia and incest in the bible already

    But sometimes it depends on the translation (and language)

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Quite easy. It was either King Salomon or King David who in their later years "had virgins in his bed every night." In that time, you can assume that we are neither talking about 18+ women nor that this was in any modern sense consenting...

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    "They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs"

    And it turns out they were actually eating children. With disturbing descriptions of what it was like. RIP Madeleine McCann.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Pretty sure some priests are pedophiles too.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    I’m pretty sure pedofilia is a problem in most religions. That’s why I choose no religion

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Missing a "further" there.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago*

    Most all ready believe that as long as a child is marry, its legal…

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago

    Do need a lot of strength for that.

    Daunting that what we'd been doing in prohibiting was not only handing it over to the black market, but increasing the value and attraction of our children to the molesters and blackmailers and worse.

    That's the hardest to come to terms with "Prohibition does not prevent. Pohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.", for our children.

    Do need a lot of strength to face that horror.

    But WOAH there... you're gonna do what now?

    "Integrate" how?

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world view that post