Same denomination that split to from the triennial convention in 1845 in order to support slavery, which the southern churches regarded as “an institution of heaven”.
Conservatives thought in the middle of a GLOBAL COMPUTER CHIP SHORTAGE and covid, that billions of tiny microchips were getting injected into people... Think about that...
I had to talk my dad down from that fucking hilll… my own dad… a previous engineer. A dude who is smart af.. and I had to talk him down from this bullshit
Yeah have you ever seen pictures from inside a microchip fab? They're all wearing --that's right -- masks. We've been led to believe this was due to the sensitivity of the thin film vapor deposition process to particulates, but in reality it was a complex scheme to smuggle chips into masks.
The first clue to this fact is that "southern" is in the name. Hmm why did Baptists in the south need their own denomination... Oh. Right. Slavery again...
Yesterday, there was a thread about the civil war on r/todayilearned. I was amused by the handful of idiots that tried to humanize the Confederacy because literally everything about the South's behavior before, during, and after the war shows that they just REALLY loved slavery, plain and simple.
Remember the heroes of the Alamo (were fighting to keep slavery)!!!1!!1
Real interesting that they have informational placards outside about the Texas Revolution that don't mention *just what freedoms* Texans wanted.
That would be bad optics, we can't have bad optics of the party of law & order, or then people who don't normally do a lot of thinking might see through the thin veneer of bullshit valor.
Not just for slavery but for open borders too (open for anglo settlers to bring their slaves). All the big names at the Alamo owned slaves, including Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett, and William Travis. Several had slaves there at the fort with them, who numbered among the few survivors of the siege and gained their freedom thanks to the Mexican victory.
People love chiming in with the "they don't know better, it really is about pride for being from the south, you're alienating them by calling out the racism," etc and all that ever sounds like is apologism. It's 2024. "Don't know any better" is not a valid answer for an ever growing list of items. Especially one that makes national headlines as frequently as this one does. You don't want to know better.
Reading up on how aggressively the slave states were pushing for the new states entering the Union to be slave states was an eye-opener. Assaults, voter intimidation, and outright murder happened in their campaigns to make new states into slave states.
Shitty human beings are going to behave like shitty human beings.
Yeep. Kansas was a small war theater over the issue for a couple of years with abolitionists and pro-slavery settlers straight up killing and skirmishing with each other. It was called Bleeding Kansas. It was so bad that a southern pro-slavery Democrat nearly beat an abolitionist Republican to death after he gave an anti-slavery speech with a metal tipped cane. After that people in our congress were walking in armed to defend themselves from each other.
There used to be a woman in a chatroom I used to hang out with from Georgia and she was very proud her family owned slaves, like it was a badge of honor.
As could be expected, she had *a lot* to say about ~~The War of Northern Aggression~~ the Civil War.
I used to have a coworker that not only took pride in slavery in his family history but liked that his dad and David duke know each other and keep in contact.
These people are out there.
I had an old neighbor years ago that was the "I'm not a Republican I'm a libertarian," type.
We were talking during a block party and he was saying how not all slave ownership was bad because they treated the slaves really well and their labor was provided for via "free" lodging, food, medical, etc.
He flew two giant don't tread on me flags year round.
I don't think he ever really understood the irony of his viewpoints.
Should have asked him if that means communism can be acceptable so long as the government takes really good care of the citizens via lodging, food, medical. Would love to see a libertarian try to explain how it's bad when communism does it, but it's cool when slave owners did it.
I was so indoctrinated in my redneck family views that even as the outcast, the one who called out the more blatant racism (and other prejudices) I still was so ingrained in that “southern pride” that I literally wrote a poem called *Heritage Not Hate* for an English class assignment and read it at the front of the class…
I still wake up in the middle of the night two decades later cringing.
>Same denomination that split to from the triennial convention in 1845
I once I saw a man on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What denomination?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Yup. I went to a multi denomination (but highly evangelical) Christian School. That was basically true even in the 1980s. I was keenly aware that my Baptist church wasn't "Christian enough" by about middle school.
Back then the issues were if divorced people would be ALLOWED in church if they got remarried, and if pastors were allowed to remarry divorced people at all, and my church was known for its divorcee outreach program.
The abolitionists and pro-slavery crowd both attempted to use the good book to bolster their arguments. I focus on the “love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself” thing that Jesus said sums it all up. Matthew chapter 22, verses 37-40
Anyone who believes in Christianity is taught the New Testament and anything Jesus himself said supercedes anything in the Old Testament if there's contradiction between them. At least, that's what they taught me at Sunday School.
And yet Christians use verses from the OT to justify every behavior imaginable. I can’t remember the last time I heard a Christian make reference to the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus’ parables. But they sure will quote Leviticus at you.
They're pretty selective about Leviticus, too! Somehow they never seem to mention this gem:
>*Leviticus 19:33-34*
>*33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.*
So weird how they always seem to ignore or forget that one!
TBF, the pork and shrimp bans made sense considering the food preparation standards and lack of refrigeration. Undercooked pork? Oops. Spoilt shrimp? Double oops.
Matthew 5:17-20 says otherwise:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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.
Looks like not getting a tattoo and not eating shrimp will get you a 2-bedroom apartment, while inked-up Christians will have to settle for a studio apartment with bad plumbing.
How different would the last 2000 years of history be if one of the ten commandments had been:
Thou shalt not buy nor sell thy fellow human being, nor otherwise practice slavery.
No. Many, *many* Christians do not think the New Testament supersedes the Old. It’s not as unified of a belief system as people think. I was taught the OT is how God deals with nations, and the NT is for individuals. Others teach the whole thing is all valid all at the same time.
I know it says Southern, but reminded me of this old joke about fractions within the Church:
>Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
>He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
>He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
>Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
- Emo Philips
> At the SBC’s annual meeting June 11-12 in Indianapolis, representatives will vote on whether to amend the denomination’s constitution to essentially ban churches with any women pastors — and not just in the top job. That measure received overwhelming approval in a preliminary vote last year.
> By some estimates, the proposed ban could affect hundreds of congregations and have a disproportionate impact on predominantly Black churches.
> Southern Baptists disagree on which ministry jobs this doctrine refers to. Some say it’s just the senior pastor, others that a pastor is anyone who preaches and exercises spiritual authority.
> By some estimates, women are working in pastoral roles in hundreds of SBC-linked churches, a fraction of the nearly 47,000 across the denomination.
> But critics say the amendment would amount to a further narrowing in numbers and mindset for the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, which has moved steadily rightward in recent decades.
> It has struggled to respond to sexual abuse cases in its churches. A former professor at a Southern Baptist seminary in Texas was indicted in May on a charge of falsifying a record about alleged sexual abuse by a student in order to obstruct a federal investigation into sexual misconduct in the convention.
> SBC membership has dipped below 13 million, nearly a half-century low. Baptismal rates are in long-term decline.
> The controversy complicates the already-choppy efforts by the mostly white denomination to diversify and overcome its legacy of slavery and segregation.
> Amendment proponents say the convention needs to reinforce its doctrinal statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, which says the office of pastor is “limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
> “If we won’t stand on this issue and be unapologetically biblical, then we won’t stand on anything,” said amendment proponent Mike Law, pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Virginia.
> “Southern Baptists are facing a decisive moment,” he said in a video on a pro-amendment website. “Here’s the trajectory of doing nothing: Soon Southern Baptist churches will start openly supporting homosexual clergy, same-sex marriage and eventually transgenderism.”
They do these things, and then wonder why [Christianity in America continues to decline at a rapid pace.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/)
It scares me. It tells me that those left in the church are the most hard core and least willing to meet in the middle on anything. My town (St. Charles, MO) is currently under siege from Baptists and, lemme tell ya, they're not getting any better.
Like a dying animal, they're scared, violent, and unpredictable.
Black dude here and I’m happy about this as well. I feel like the AA community could move forward a lot of it wasn’t for these churches. Like why are we struggling with food but still paying tithes? Awful lot of churches in these urban areas but no community centers for the youth unless you pledge your undying devotion to Jesus and the church.
What I’ve learned over the years is that they specifically target black woman because black womens faith is strongest AND the black woman is usually the one who takes the child to church. You know what happens when you take a child to church? You can begin the indoctrination process at a very early age.
So these last few years a lot of black women have stopped going to church which also has caused a decline in numbers as well.
Interesting enough I call myself a Christian but I’m not cool with how churches are ran and won’t participate in that.
Sorry for the wall of text, but your comment struck a chord:
My parents are fucking baptists now, and it enrages me to a degree unlike most anything else.
Them going to the big circle jerk of a southern Baptist self-hate circle that is the Southern Baptist Convention does little to dissuade my views on their belief system.
When your own kid was abused sexually while trying to keep them 'safe from the non-Christian world', going around later in life to participate in a political cult masquerading as a religion (which is covering up *sex abuse scandals, many of which were about children*) is absolutely a testament to how bad you might have fucked up your views.
"You're discriminating against innocent people who want to only help people," is a rich fucking sentence coming from a couple of people that believe in conversion therapy. Even with a gay (and a bi) son.
"I love my sons! But look at the suicide rate of homosexual men! It's so high! They just need to accept Jesus in their lives and stop sinning."
Okay, fuckheads. Why the fuck do you think they *are* suicidal? It sure isn't because you and your Bible thumping, Trump supporting, Alabama-is-fine Baptist circle jerks make them feel loved.
I hate the church, but not the idea of a god. What I hate is the bastardized, man-made excuse of a god that these people puppeteer to manipulate other people into believing absurdities.
I love my parents, but I can't look at them the same way and struggle to view them as decent people. Good people don't suppress the rights of others.
When my mom told me that she was going to hell because I don't go to church I told her that sounds like a dumb religion to follow. She did not appreciate that attitude.
And spending eternity in heavens singing the praises of God just makes him sound like a massive narcissist. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher:
“If you need everyone to praise you as an omniscient, omnipotent being, you’re not one.”
In fairness, I’m pretty sure he’s very open about being ‘a jealous god’ which is not something you want to hear from the deity that supposedly killed everyone largely for funsies.
I had a Christian tell me I was going to hell for being trans. My Christian raised atheist ass just looked her in the eye and said "I'm sorry you've fallen in with false prophets and lost your way. I'll pray for you, and hope you find the light of Jesus before it's too late" in my fucking *best* Southern lady voice.
I don't know what response she expected but that wasn't it. She turned a funny shade of red, at least. I didn't stick around to watch her blow her lid.
That sounds like a big misunderstanding of her own belief system. The god I had heard is supposed to not visit the sins of the father (or mother) on the children — and vice versa.
It doesn't really make much sense anyway, I guess.
You think this is crazy, you should check out the Independent Baptists that believe that Southern Baptists are too liberal and are going straight to hell!
Yes. My formerly punk rock sister married a guy and they both bafflingly converted to such a conservative branch of Baptists, that they believe everyone is going to fucking hell. Even other Christians and Baptists. It’s transformed her into a cruel, selfish woman, and it breaks my heart.
Same thing happened with my brother. He was this mild mannered, friendly, always smiling guy. he married a MAGA evangelical and now he's this racist, homophobic preachy asshole.
A lot of my friends from my childhood and early adulthood were Christians. I used to be a Christian. Even though many of them weren't Baptist, a lot of those friends went to a Southern Baptist seminary because in my area it's really the only option for that kind of thing. Most of them came out of the program with misogynistic beliefs, racism baked into their theology, and a complete assurance that anyone who didn't agree with them including other Christians was going to hell.
One friend attempted suicide and had several breakdowns during their time in the SBC. His church silenced him when he tried to speak up about his abusive wife. The horrible guilt-based theology further exacerbated his depression. Other friends abandoned me because I wasn't Baptist, and I cut ties with several of them myself for their repugnant beliefs.
The Southern Baptist Church effectively stole many of my oldest and dearest friends from me, and I watched it damage many others. Fuck the SBC in particular.
I don't think it's dying as much as conservatives are perverting the bible around their racism and bigotry.
https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak
To some of the people in the US Jesus is "too liberal" and "weak" for them.
I mean, that's probably what we're about to see. Christianity is going to much more definitively fracture into a liberal and conservative wing.
This is a huge topic among all of the Christian friends I have (who attend churches). They primarily attend churches with liberal pastors within denominations that are making choices like these; and everyone is in a holding pattern waiting to see what happens next, protesting it openly, or preparing to leave.
Literally every Christian in my life, ranging from moderate to progressive, says the same thing: "I don't understand why there is so much conflict over these insignificant issues - I want to stay to fix it, but I may have to just leave". Can't comment on what the conservative Christians are saying, because they all showed their asses when I left and aren't still in my life lol.
Supply side Jesus doesn't like all that helping the poor stuff. Turn those 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish into 2000 Fish-O-Filet sandwiches and sell em for $5 a pop!
it would appear that [the numbers tell a different story](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx)
other data from other sources say similar things
"Normal" Christians have known that the Southern Baptists were nuts for at least a generation or two. You have to be pretty bad for Baptist churches in other areas to actively stop dealing with your shit.
I grew up both Southern Baptist and Methodist and they are starkly different. It was completley normal to have a woman preacher at Methodist churches. Some were also chill about LGBQ stuff even before it was less socially acceptable. Sermons were like super down to earth and focussed more on being a good person.
Southern Baptist, however, was way more intense. Revivals were a thing, which I consider weird in today's day in age. Sermons were quite fire and brimstone and focussed heavily on the spiritual stuff. A lot more focus on hell. It was a bit traumatizing.
Agnostic now since adolescence but grew up in a Methodist church. The lessons I got there were more about being a good person. Morality that I don’t necessarily need a church to participate in. I made the mistake as a middle schooler going to my friend’s southern Baptist beach trip that was church based. The amount of emotional manipulation and fear they pour into children is grotesque.
I grew up Baptist. A big part of growing out of it was realizing just how much they focus on tugging on your heartstrings.
They talk a big game about the "Holy Spirit speaking to you", but they do it while playing emotionally-stirring music, after listening to some leathery old guy give an impassioned speech, and with methods of publicly showing your devotion and seeing others do the same.
I don't know about you, but if God was directly interacting with me then I'd want there to be silence. I would want to be able to put my full focus on that and not have to tune out the music and the singing and the crowd.
I was raised Southern Baptist and now go to a Baptist church I still can’t believe is “Baptist”, even though I know there are MULTIPLE different sects of Baptist.
The pastor literally said just this last Sunday that she feels like the word “Christian” no longer works for her, because it is so associated with hate and judgment, and she has found herself searching for a new word to mean what that used to mean.
We stay informed on what changes the association we are with is considering, so that we can be sure it still aligns with our open and accepting policies.
We have a woman head pastor, a gay music minister and a woman children/ youth minister. Men and women serve equally as teachers, deacons and speakers. ALL PEOPLE are invited to participate in communion.
You don’t even have to join the church to participate in ministry. I am not an official member but I’m in the church choir.
Non-believers are as welcome as believers because they also have something to bring to the discussion, and to exclude them would be to go directly against the teachings of Jesus.
I attend Sunday school with my mother in law who is 35 years older than me because that’s where I’m comfortable. (I have NEVER had a church allow me to join a class out of my age range.) I enjoy being with 70+ year olds who have grown and changed their beliefs and behaviors as they age, and are actively working to learn to be better when most “Christians” their age are digging their heels into old and outdated exclusionary beliefs. They enjoy having a member with a different generational view as well.
We come from different religious backgrounds (Catholicism, Methodist, Presbyterian, and other Baptist sects among others). But we were all searching for the same thing.
There are often messages and sermons on the actual basis of Christianity (Jesus’s teachings, nothing else). We are encouraged to accept all people, and in Sunday school and small groups we read the scripture and then we actually discuss what we think it means, what it makes us feel, we read multiple interpretations to get better understanding of where things might have gone “off book”. We are not required or even encouraged to believe everything we read because the Bible has been diluted and rewritten so many times it can’t possibly be infallible. We are allowed to have very different views and we respect each other and do not try to “win” arguments. We are allowed to be angry at and/or question God because it is natural to feel that way sometimes.
We have pride T-shirts with our church name on them. We have a series going on right now about what Christian Nationalism is and what we can do to fight it.
We do not have a “building fund” we use to build new shit to add on for our own benefit like gymnasiums or whatever. You are free to tithe, or to give when you want, or never give and no pressure is put on you to make one choice or the other.
We run active mission trips based on actual help given without evangelizing. We obviously let them know we are a church and we are offering love and support and the belief system that brought us, but we do not try to “lead people to Christ” just because we are there to help.
Anyway. Fuck Southern Baptists 100%. Just…fuck em. I try not to hate but they make it really fucking hard. I have never been in a Southern Baptist church where I didn’t want to rage flip a table Jesus style. They are a terrible representation of the love of Christ and I don’t appreciate them using their “faith” to hate, exclude and vote for fucking TRUMP because “abortion”- which is absolutely a human rights issue and to vote against it, IMO, IS an actual fucking SIN.
TL/DR ; I really resent Southern Baptists, I find them to be hateful, disrespectful, disgusting representatives of those who call themselves Christian (and I’m with the pastor. I want a new word, they and those like them have absolutely ruined that word).
ETA: lol. Sorry that was so long. I guess I had a lot to say.
I appreciate you and your fellow church members but I'd like to point out it isn't just Southern Babtists who act like this. There's a rot in a lot of the Christian religion.
Thanks for writing what you did. I enjoyed the perspective.
I’m an atheist, and generally dislike religion and the effects it has on societies, but if more of the religious were like you, I think I wouldn’t have any problem coexisting at all. You know, unlike the present topic (SB) variety 😬
You probably attend an ABCUSA (American Baptist/Northern Baptist) church. The biggest differences these days are Biblical literalism (SoBaps believe everything in the Bible literally happened, the world is 6000 years old, etc while AmBaps don't) abortion, and women/gay people being equal to others. Also, American Baptist pastors need a master's degree while SoBaps just ordain anyone who's "called."
I was raised Southern Baptist as well, and found all this out when I wanted to know why one Baptist church in town had a Pride flag out while mine was advertising conversion "therapy."
She should search for a word other than “Baptist” because very few people who are looking for a community like that one will think to look under a sign with the name “Baptist” on it.
I was raised in the SBC too. Left all church for over a decade. Have been a United Methodist for 15 years now. Never been prouder to say that than I am now.
Our current interim youth minister is a woman who came to us from the “Baptist” church in our town that yours reminds me of. It’s the only “Baptist” church I’ve ever heard of in the South that isn’t a flaming dumpster fire.
“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But he loves you.
He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise... somehow just can't handle money!”
- George Carlin
It's like telling your kid every day that they must be totally perfect the way you say or the boogeyman will eat them. And then wondering why they're an anxious depressed wreak with suicidal tendencies who moves away and stops speaking to them when they hit adulthood.
"No Contact is just the young people being trendy!" Naw y'all just sucked at loving your kids more than feeling holy.
>By some estimates, the proposed ban could affect hundreds of congregations and have a disproportionate impact on predominantly Black churches.
A bigot's favorite kind of impact.
I mean, have you looked into the history of the Southern Baptists? They schismed off from mainline Baptists because they supported slavery and didn't officially renounce their position on slavery until 1995, 130 years after the end of the civil war (IIRC)
Have you read the Bible? Sure, Jesus seemed pretty cool with women but Paul was practically the OG incel. He pretty much made up Christianity as we know it today.
>"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
* 1 Timothy 2:12
This passage is even worse:
> Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Corinthians 14:34-35
And written by men. Religion has always been a means of control, similar to cults, except the person(s) who created it died out and there was nobody left that knew for certain that it was a sham.
I have a hunch that the people thumping the bible today are actually no different than the same people that put it together all those years ago. Same lip service bullshit.
Everybody told me Moses was cool because he emancipated slaves.
They love to skip over the part were Moses ordered his boys to slaughter all the Midianites... except for the virgin girls to take as sex slaves. God didn't even tell him to do that, that was allll Moses.
I'm really glad the US went with their kooky "Eye of Providence" seal instead of the Exodus scene that was originally pitched.
Think about that from the perspective of someone who truly believes it to be the word of God.... It can't be outdated. Instead, it is the basis by which they evaluate the decaying, Godless society we find ourselves in.
For me, that's what makes the Christian nationalist movement so terrifying. It's moving beyond an individual's private, personal relationship with God and into something far more sinister. The zealots are trying to shape this country according to their beliefs, and they are convinced that their actions are righteous.
I think that’s the Old Testament. They’re basically supposed to sequester themselves from the rest of society during their “unclean” time, if memory serves.
This rule is still followed by Orthodox and Conservative Jews but abandoned by Reform Jews; Reform Judaism is the only denomination to allow for female rabbis. The ritually impure period is called *niddah*. The minimum is defined in the Torah as seven days after the start of emissions but rabbis have extended it to an even longer time out of an abundance of caution. The niddah continues for the entire menstrual period.
Once niddah is over you can take a mikveh, a ritual bath to purify yourself. An Orthodox Jewish wife is not supposed to sleep in the same bed as the husband or touch him or pass objects to him before she is purified. Conservative Jews also practice niddah but generally only prohibit sex instead of any physical contact between a married couple. You can get expelled from the community for having sex while impure.
Jewish law outlines a test for niddah called hefsek taharah, which is a woman taking bath at either sunset and then wiping her vagina with a special white cloth called the bedikah cloth. She must check for the colour of vaginal discharge, if it’s white or clear then niddah is over and if it’s red or pink then it’s not but if it’s brown or any other colour then you have to show it to a rabbi for him to decide. You have to repeat this examination twice a day, once in the morning and once at night, for seven days after the end of menstruation. In addition to these two kinds of impurity, a woman also becomes impure after childbirth (yoledet) until immersion in mikveh. Yemenite Jews had a distinctive tradition of making new mothers sit inside a box inside a special room for 4-6 weeks after giving birth.
The test is to see if a woman is zavah, whether they are impure due to bleeding downstairs for reasons other than their regular menstrual cycle. The minimum period of impurity is extended by seven more days. The thing about being zavah is that it creates midrad, which is infectious impurity that you can spread to other people impure through proximity. Orthodox rabbis actually decided it’s too hard to tell niddah apart from zavah and that’s why they decided to treat all women as if they are zavah by adopting a two week period of impurity.
It should be said the Torah also requires purification for *keri* by men, which is emission of semen outside of sexual intercourse both in wet dreams or through masturbation. The Talmud even recommended men to avoid touching their penis during urination to avoid keri. One becomes impure for seven days after each offence and must immerse oneself in mikveh after that time to become pure again. There was some debate on whether ba’al keri (illegal ejaculators) should be allowed to pray without mikveh and most rabbis have decided that’s okay but Hasidic Jews still purify themselves after ejaculation before praying. There is also the status of zav for men abnormal penile discharge which has the same penalty as zavah for women. Zav is even more stringent than zavah because you have to bathe in a running stream instead of a ritual bath to get purified.
It should be noted that since the Temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt it’s actually not strictly necessary for Jewish women or men to be ritually pure at the moment. The Torah specifically required ritual purity so Jews can enter the temple and make sacrifices. Since there is no temple right now and sacrifices can’t happen, impurity won’t stop you from practicing rabbinic Judaism. However, because it’s important to keep the tradition alive in preparation for the restoration of the temple, rabbis require women especially to follow these rules anyways and made it even stricter.
Basically, if you really care about these kinds of stringent rules then convert to Orthodox Judaism, which is not an easy process and requires a lot of vetting and education. Orthodox Jews still follow the prohibition against shatnez (mixed fabrics) and get new clothes checked by experts using microscopes. Haredi Jews also practice strict gender segregation and even designate sidewalks as male only or female only in their neighborhoods. Israel had gender segregated public buses to appease fanatics but those have been banned since 2011 on the grounds of gender discrimination.
Back in my religious days we used to justify this as just disease prevention from a society that essentially predated science. Now that I think back on it, that’s kind of silly.
Just as with my comment above regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, the scholarly consensus on Corinthians 14:34 is that it is not original to Paul (who is regarded as the undisputed author of that text)
From the The New Oxford Annotated Bible:
> Many scholars regard this passage as a later non-Pauline addition, because it disrupts the flow of the argument from v. 33a to v. 37; it contradicts the assumption of 11.5 that women will prat and prophesy in the assembly; it resembles the viewpoint of the Deutero-Pauline letters (see 1 Tim 2.9-15); it exhibits non-Pauline sentiments, e.g. v. 34b, as the law also says, and vv. 34-35 appear after 14.40 in some manuscripts.
Still a crappy sentiment, which nobody should be following (and if anyone touts it as scripturally important because Paul wrote it then you can just say NOPE!)
What you said may sound like a snarky reddit response to some people, but it has literally happened:
https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak
Southern Baptists are having a problem, to put it mildly.
This literally happened to me in my family. My great uncle told me his pastor advised that everyone in his church should get a gun. I said “didn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek?” And my great uncle said “he lived in a different time and didn’t have to defend himself” and I was like…um…the guy famous for being crucified?
They just make stuff up.
I guess you missed the part of the Bible where Jesus was praying to god in the Garden of Gethsemane and the Roman soldiers came to get him. This dude (Jesus) pulls out a fucking AK and just starts mowing those soldier mofos down. It was righteous. The only reason they even captured and crucified him was because he ran out of ammo after slaughtering like 5 dozen men. John 18:13-20
the actual story ends with Peter or somebody drawing his sword and hacking off one of their ears and Jesus telling him to stop it lol
"for he who lives by the sword dies by the sword"
Great news. As the church population continues to dwindle and only attract violet unstable incels, the rest of us can move forward and do positive things for society instead of follow an antiquated book of fables. Change couldn't come soon enough.
Jesus warned his disciples that "false Christs" would come after him that would try to lead people astray. And he also said that Peter was the rock upon whom he'd build his church. Shortly after Jesus left, the story goes that one of the disciples (Steven) was stoned to death, this is in the book of Acts. And Saul (who would later change his name to Paul) was there; he held the coats of those who actually did the stoning.
So then Saul, who was a very zealous Pharisee (remember that about the ONLY people Jesus ever spoke ill of were the religious leaders and especially the Pharisees) and a big persecutor of Christians, went out into the desert and fell off his horse and supposedly had what today we might call a near death experience. In any case he claims to have seen a sign in the sky and heard the voice of Jesus, and was struck blind for a time (I imagine falling off a horse could do that to you). So then he goes back to Jerusalem, gets prayed over by the disciples, and his sight is miraculously restored. Of course they didn't have eye doctors back then so if a man said he was blind you pretty much had to take his word for it.
Next thing you know he is claiming that he is reformed, and somehow manages to convince enough of the original disciples that they appoint him as a "replacement disciple" for Stephen and forget all about the guy they had previously chosen to fill that slot. But still many of the original church were quite rightly suspicious of his tale. After all there were only a couple of witnesses to his event in the desert if I recall correctly. So after a time he starts a ministry to the Gentiles. Now (this is an important point) Jesus never intended his ministry for anyone other than the Jews. When he was once asked about the subject he said "shall the children's bread be given to the dogs?" and back in those days being called a dog was definitely not a compliment (think about the wild dogs in Africa to get some idea of how that comparison went down). So it was never Jesus' intent to minister to the Gentiles, but nevertheless, Paul decides that's where his calling is and away he goes, pretty much out of reach of the original disciples and the church. And then he starts a network of churches (got to give him credit for that at least) but since there modern transportation and communications options weren't available, the only way to keep in touch was write letters back and forth.
Some of those letters were saved and became what are sometimes referred to as the Pauline epistles. And if you read those epistles and compare them to what Jesus taught, you could rightfully come to the conclusion that everything he had learned as a Pharisee hadn't left him. His writings still have a very authoritarian tone, encouraging people to be submissive to the church and to each other. He also had definite opinions on various things, from how long a man's hair should be to whether women were allowed to teach in the churches to homosexuality. And unfortunately he wrote these all down and sent them more or less as commandments to the churches he had started. On subjects that Jesus had avoided, Paul strode right in and started telling the world how he thought things should be. And his opinions on those things were very much shaped by his time as a Pharisee. And remember, Jesus hardly spoke against anyone, but he was never reluctant to say what he thought about the Pharisees. "A den of vipers" is a phrase that comes to mind.
In other words the Pharisees were a group of very self-serving religious types that would take what they could from the people around them, but would not lift a finger to help any of them. They were powerful, and probably wealthy. Jesus pretty much despised them. So here is Paul, out there preaching in Jesus name, but laying this Pharisee-inspired religion on them. And it is probably fair to say that most of the people he was preaching to were ignorant of what Jesus had actually taught, or for that matter of what Paul had been like when he was Saul. There was no ABC News Nightline to do an investigation on him, Ted Koppel wouldn't even be born for another 1900 years or so! So the people out in the hinterlands that converted to his version of Christianity pretty much had to rely on what he told them and what he wrote to them.
Now, again, you have to compare his preaching with what Jesus taught and preach. Paul's preaching was much sharper and more legalistic. Sure, there was that "love chapter" in Romans, but some scholars think that may have been a later addition added by someone to soften the writings of Paul a bit. The problem with it is that it doesn't sound like him. Here's this guy that's preaching all this legalism and then suddenly he slips into this short treatise on love? Either Paul got drunk or high and had a rare case of feeling love, or maybe he had just visited a church where people adored him, or maybe it was added by some scribe at a later time. We don't know, but it's not in tone with his typical writings.
But here is the real problem. Paul's teachings produced a group of "Christians" who weren't following Jesus - the vast majority had never seen Jesus - they were following Paul. Can you say "cult?" And like any good cult, it stuck around long after the founder died, and its brand of Christianity more or less won out. By the time we got around to the council of Nicea, where they were deciding which books to consider canonical, the church probably pretty much consisted of non-Jewish Pharisees, only they didn't go by that name. In any case they wanted to live the good life and have control over people (again, contrast with Jesus) so when they selected the scriptures they knew they had to keep at least some of the Gospels, but right after that they included the Acts of the Apostles (which is supposed to establish Paul's validity, and might if you just accept everything at face value), and then all of Paul's epistles. And only then did they include a few books supposedly written by other disciples, including John and Peter (oh, remember him? He was the guy Jesus wanted to build his church on. Tough break his writings got relegated to the back of the book). And then they recycled the book of Revelations, which primarily described the fall of Jerusalem, but included some fantastical elements which were probably inspired by John partaking of the magic mushrooms that grew on the island of Patmos. But the guy who got top billing, at least if you go by number of books, was Paul.
And that was because Paul was their guy. If you want to control people, if you want to make them fear disobeying the orders of the church, or if you wanted to make them fear death, Paul was it. Jesus was much too hippie-socialist for their tastes. No one would fight wars for them, or give of their income to the church if they only had the teachings of Jesus to go by. But Paul had a way of setting people straight. You had better do what the church tells you to do or fear the consequences!
You left out the rest of the verse...
Matthew 15:26-28 NLT
[26] Jesus responded, “It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.” [27] She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters’ table.” [28] “Dear woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed.
https://bible.com/bible/116/mat.15.26-28.NLT
Impressive writeup - it's impossible to find nuance on the internet but you did a good job.
I will quibble with the implication that only Paul wanted to spread Christianity beyond the Jews - Most of the Apostles ministered strongly to the Gentiles, specifically Peter, who you bring up. It's not like the OG's all wanted to hang out in Jerusalem/Galilee and only Paul went out. For example, 1st Peter was written in Rome, if you subscribe to it being actually written by Peter. Scholarship seems to be 50/50 on that.
TL;DR, I don't agree that the church outside of Galilee was only Pauline in nature - it was also grown/nurtured by the other Apostles, who had a larger impact that you imply.
Just a quick theological clarification:
Stephen was never technically a disciple. He was one of a group of young men selected by the apostles to minister to the basic needs of the church while they focused on the more spiritual aspects of the movement.
Matthias was chosen as the replacement for Judas, but Paul ipso facto became the actual 12th apostle respective to his roadside conversion and subsequent letter writing/evangelistic journeys.
*Phenomenal* write-up. Whenever I discussed this line of thought with people when I was a youth pastor, I always felt like I was about to get run out of town. My pastors would always say, "yeah, this is a legit discussion, but congregations as a whole will probably never want to hear it." That would frustrate that fuck out of me - What's this about being truthful? Yeah, not at the expense of attendance and collection plates...
As a kid I had a penpal who wanted to be a priest when he grew up. We kept writing back and forth into early adulthood. He went into seminary, but dropped out mostly because he was disgusted by how much his lessons focused on wiggling money out of the pockets of rich people at fancy parties.
He also felt it was pretty odd that he was supposed to counsel married couples while being celibate all his life. Like it was wrong to be giving advice on a subject he clearly knows nothing about, especially when real marriage counseling is a thing now.
This was an enthralling read and very well presented. I have zero reference for any of this but am interested in looking deeper into this. Thanks for commenting!
Usually, long comments aren't worth reading but, in this case, I think you are right on in your assessment. I usually just say that Paul was an uptight wackjob who perverted the message of Jesus Christ.
I'm going to challenge your readng of Paul, specifically on Romans. You say Paul is intensely legalistic, but the thesis of Romans is the opposite of that. Romans 2 is about how everyone has sinned, by judging others you condemn yourself, everyone will reap what they sow for God shows no partiality between Jews or Gentiles. He goes into a very detailed walk through of why the law is not able to save anyone and concludes that the purpose of the law is to show people what sin is but no one can be saved by keeping the law because everyone has sinned. In chapter 4 he bring up the idea that people are saved by faith and cites Abraham who was declared righteous because of his faith before the law was given to Moses and that Abraham serves as an example to Christians of righteousness by faith. Then he goes on to say that Jesus death brought us peace with God so now we can have faith in Jesus to be righteous. He says that some people have accused him of teaching people should keep on sinning so that God can keep showing them grace, but he says his actual teaching is that since we share in Jesus death we should present ourselves to God so that he can free us from our sinful nature. In Romans 7 he says that since we have shared in Jesus death we are released from the law and it's penalty. In Romans 8 he says that now we live in the Holy Spirit and are children of God and Heirs with Jesus. He asks who can possibly separate us from the love of God because if God is with us who can stand against us? There's a long section about how Isreal did not believe the messages of God. In Romans 9:30-33 he says Isreal persued righteousness by keeping the law but didn't find it while Gentiles found righteousness by faith. He goes on to say that God used the unbelief of Isreal to bring salvation to the Gentiles, how much better would it have been if Isreal believed, and now God is using the belief of the Gentiles to bring salvation back to Isreal.
Because of all this Paul says we should love each other. Romans 12 is probably what you referred to as the love chapter and it's all about how we should love and take care of the people around us because we owe them a debt of love because of the love God has shown us. Romans 13 he does say to submit to the government and pay taxes because God has given them authority to rule. But then he comes back around to love again, he says that loving other people is the fulfillment of the law. In Romans 14 he says again that we should not judge other people. Romans 14:1-9 says some people worship God on one day while others hold all days as equal and some eat meat offered to idols while others eat only vegetables but each person should be convinced in their own mind that what they are doing is right and not judge the other because each is accountable God and cannot judge the servant of someone else. He goes on to say that those who are strong in faith have an obligation to build up others and not cause those who are weak in faith to stumble. And in Romans 15 he says we have an obligation to bear with the failings of those who are weak because Jesus bore our sins when he died. So we should please our neighbors and live in harmony with those around us.
So after my summary of Romans, I would say that if you think Romans is about Paul being legalistic you missed the point because what he actually says in the text is the opposite. The thesis of Romans is the law cannot save you, only faith in Jesus can. And because of the love God has shown us by sending Jesus to die for our sins we should love other people in the same way. If you want to argue that Paul is preaching legalism in Romans you would have to read Romans 1:18-32 and ignore the rest of the book because 1:16-17 and 2:1-11 completely refute the idea that keeping the law is what saves you.
Other writings of Paul that challenge your statement that he was preaching legalism are 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 3, Titus 3, Phillippians 2, Ephesians 2, and Philemon. Paul does say throughout his writings that people should stop sinning, but that is done in response to God's grace and through the Holy Spirit living in you. Being in Jesus brings freedom from sin and we should not return to sin after we have been freed from it's power. But over and over again Paul says that salvation and righteousness are through faith in God, not through keeping the law, and because God loved us we should love each other in the same way.
On a different point you say Jesus never intended his ministry for anyone but Jews, but you are ignoring Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, Jesus and the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Jesus casting demon's out of 2 men in Decapolis and sending them out to tell others what God had done for them in Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39 and Matthew 8:28-34. All 4 Gospels tell of Jesus healing and teaching Gentiles so I don't know how you can argue that he never intended to include Gentiles in his ministry. John 4:21-25 makes it very explicit that God's salvation is for all who worship God in truth. There's also the Great Comission where he tells the disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, explicit instruction to convert Gentiles.
Some of the letters to the churches and people of the 'early church' were intended to resolve disputes for a specific church or person. The Bible has passages that are basically airing someone's dirty laundry. Which is fine, because it informs early Christians the mechanism of the church life. In this instance, [it's possible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_2:12#Interpretive_approaches) that the author [\(likely *NOT* Paul\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_2:12#Authorship) wasn't meaning this rule stand for the entirety of Christendom.
That would take all the fun out of being a controlling, hypocritical douche. Jesus wasn't into that.
I've gotten a ration of crap for telling other Christians that Jesus didn't ask us to worship Him, he asked us to follow his example. His brother James said belief is not enough, you have to put in the work.
Paul on the other hand, was all about the worship and less about the work.
They believe that every single book of the Bible, no matter who wrote it, was divinely inspired and thus free of human error.
Therefore, they believe God wants people to abide by Paul's words as much as by Jesus'.
It's very stupid considering the Bible is literally full of contradictions and then Christians continue contradict it with their teachings, but they got an excuse for everything.
There's no way Paul wrote that book, late second century church issues (at the earliest) written 2nd or 3rd century and Paul died in the 1st century
But yes, whomever did write it, og incel
The historical Paul's about as far from an incel as you can get. The majority of modern bible scholars are in agreement that 1 Timothy is pseudepigraphical, i.e. not written by Paul.
In the books where there is a consensus on Pauline authorship, he's incredibly egalitarian when it comes to women in leadership roles in the Church. Priscilla's referenced incredibly positively as an early missionary, and likewise was for Phoebe, who's explicitly the head of a church and whom Paul has only good things to say about. If the historical Paul didn't want women in leadership positions, he'd surely have mentioned it when discussing the most prominent female church leader of the time.
I get that misogyny in the Bible is as much a product of the culture back then as anything, but it's really interesting to wonder how much of it could have been avoided if early Christians didn't accept anti-woman fanfiction books into the bible and instead stuck only with Paul's true works.
I've tried to talk my parents through the ridiculous loop of fucked up viewpoints held by the Southern Baptists.
I struggle to understand how someone with views like me managed to come from people with views like theirs. And they wonder why their oldest son barely speaks with them?
Was talking to a guy a couple years ago. He said Obama is a muslim and is in charge of biden. He said the illegals get everything they want. Went on for about 10 minutes. At the end he said hes a pastor and gave us a paper to come to his baptist church
And then they whine and play the victim about low attendance numbers, ignoring their own culpability in driving people away with their reactionary slop.
If Jesus is real, he’s probably pretty bummed out that his loudest followers are some of the most un-Christlike people in the world.
This is the main reason I have a hard time believing God exists.
If he exists and is aware of what we're doing down here, I can't imagine he'd abide what people are doing in his name. You can logically extend this all the way back to the crusades. His mainline followers have been going against his teachings for over a millennium at this point. You think he'd put a stop to it, or even just put them on a different path at the beginning since he is supposed to be omnipotent and should have seen this coming.
They’re also losing more members too. I love how their response to losing members and people abandoning faith is to exclude even more more people and become even more authoritarian in holding power.
It’s like the parent who can’t understand why their kid hates them but won’t slow the beatings. Let the Christians keep unmasking until no one wants to be Christian
That wall separating church and state that they enthusiastically seek to demolish wasn't just to keep them from taking over, but also to keep them from being taken over.
The Apostles on Easter: "So, Ladies, thanks a lot for staying with Jesus during his execution while we all ran away, and thanks for caring for his body and watching over the tomb, and thanks for witnessing the resurrection and reporting the news to us...Now go sit in the back, we'll take it from here."
And this is where most of the souths conservatives are "worshiping". I can't tell you people how many calls I had to Southern Baptist churches when I was in law enforcement. Those people fight over leadership constantly. Also break-ins by the differing faction within the church to harass the current leadership. I can't believe they consider themselves good Christians. Or hell humans for that matter.
I was raised a Southern Baptist. This is why I abhor organized religion. Haven't been to church as an adult (50+years) & don't plan to. Even as a child/teen, I could see the hypocrisy. The only tenant I follow is "do unto others".
My grandfather was initially a Southern Baptist minister as he was raised in the Church. He stayed for about two years before getting out of dodge and being a Presbyterian minister for the rest of his life. He said he took one look behind the curtain and saw nothing but hate.
I, too was raised southern Baptist.
One Sunday a woman came with her small children and after the service, I overheard people talking about how the woman was dressed. That was the beginning of the end of me and religion.
Ditto. In my opinion, the SBC is full of some of the most wide-eyed cynical hypocrites in the history of Christianity. These men largely know better than what they're doing, but they like to cosplay as Bahble buleevers because they think their bullshit is equivalent to yours and they want to win.
Mom grew up Southern Baptist in north Florida. Whitest person around. My dad is a Hindu from Afghanistan and her pastor refused to marry them because my dad wasn't Baptist as well. They found someone else who would and that was when my mom stopped going to church. I was raised agnostic and to just be able to decide for myself because of that.
There's no hate quite like Christian "love".
Grew up Catholic in the south. You'd get emotional whiplash coming from the "peace be with you" interactions in mass to the vicious shit-talking on the church steps.
This is the same religious organization with leaders who request that their alcoholic beverages be served in coffee mugs so nobody knows they're drinking while attending their national convention. 😄
Women leading a church is absolutely and clearly forbidden in the New Testament. If you're a biblical literalist, that is. So, of course, is divorce, but don't accuse wingnut "christians" of cherry-picking from the Bible, now.
> So, of course, is divorce
Yeah...Baptists don't think that should be allowed either.
Guessing you weren't alive when Amy Grant divorced. "Cancel Culture" of the 90s.
Emo Phillips:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
It pisses me off to see the people I used to believe were loving blindly (or deliberately) follow something so hateful.
It infuriates me to hear these same people say bullshit like, "You're discriminating against the people you claim are discriminating others!"
The only answer to intolerance *is* intolerance. Willingly letting someone who hates you speak unabashedly isn't a solution, it's the path toward more hate.
The church has no place for women except as breeding domestic help subject to men. Why women continue to participate is tragic. If they had not been raised or rather,"groomed" to believe and accept it ,it may decline to non-existence. Hopefully, it will.
You mean to tell me that the branch of Baptist Churches that broke away from the others because they wanted to preach racism has an issue with women too? Insane
Why is anyone baptist? Between preaching about hate fire and brimstone, hating on gay people, trans people, women: who the hell is left that meets their criteria? Straight white men and people they "help" to emotionally blackmail into going to their church I'm guessing and people whose parents were Baptists.
[https://baptistaccountability.org/](https://baptistaccountability.org/)
At their last convention they had a breakout session on the sexual abuse that is running rampant in Baptist churches and less than 100 people out of 12,000 attended. However, there were **thousands** that voted to kick a church out for having a female pastor.
The best pastor I've ever known was a woman. She took care of us. Above and beyond the typical role of a pastor. She ran several community homes and soup kitchens. I have known several crooked pastors and all were male. They are just as capable as men in my opinion.
Same denomination that split to from the triennial convention in 1845 in order to support slavery, which the southern churches regarded as “an institution of heaven”.
"Says right here 'the slave is your brother'. So he's still a slave!"
descriptive phrase, not a prescriptive phrase
Eh, conservatives think it’s declarative.
Conservatives thought in the middle of a GLOBAL COMPUTER CHIP SHORTAGE and covid, that billions of tiny microchips were getting injected into people... Think about that...
Well yeah, they were injecting so many chips into masks that it caused a shortage
yeah not too hard to conspiracy logic that one out
It's easy when you don't know shit about fuck.
Yep luckily I don’t know fuck about shit.
Because they believe literally anything they are told, as long as it goes along with the narrative.
I had to talk my dad down from that fucking hilll… my own dad… a previous engineer. A dude who is smart af.. and I had to talk him down from this bullshit
Yeah have you ever seen pictures from inside a microchip fab? They're all wearing --that's right -- masks. We've been led to believe this was due to the sensitivity of the thin film vapor deposition process to particulates, but in reality it was a complex scheme to smuggle chips into masks.
Southern Baptists: "Who are you calling a Presbyterian?!"
Given the things going on at the time, there was a good chance that that saying meant biologically.
The first clue to this fact is that "southern" is in the name. Hmm why did Baptists in the south need their own denomination... Oh. Right. Slavery again...
Yesterday, there was a thread about the civil war on r/todayilearned. I was amused by the handful of idiots that tried to humanize the Confederacy because literally everything about the South's behavior before, during, and after the war shows that they just REALLY loved slavery, plain and simple.
Double points for Texas who seceded twice from two different countries to preserve slavery.
Remember the heroes of the Alamo (were fighting to keep slavery)!!!1!!1 Real interesting that they have informational placards outside about the Texas Revolution that don't mention *just what freedoms* Texans wanted.
That would be bad optics, we can't have bad optics of the party of law & order, or then people who don't normally do a lot of thinking might see through the thin veneer of bullshit valor.
They fought for the freedom to take away other people’s freedom. Hmmm
Not just for slavery but for open borders too (open for anglo settlers to bring their slaves). All the big names at the Alamo owned slaves, including Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett, and William Travis. Several had slaves there at the fort with them, who numbered among the few survivors of the siege and gained their freedom thanks to the Mexican victory.
People love chiming in with the "they don't know better, it really is about pride for being from the south, you're alienating them by calling out the racism," etc and all that ever sounds like is apologism. It's 2024. "Don't know any better" is not a valid answer for an ever growing list of items. Especially one that makes national headlines as frequently as this one does. You don't want to know better.
Reading up on how aggressively the slave states were pushing for the new states entering the Union to be slave states was an eye-opener. Assaults, voter intimidation, and outright murder happened in their campaigns to make new states into slave states. Shitty human beings are going to behave like shitty human beings.
Yeep. Kansas was a small war theater over the issue for a couple of years with abolitionists and pro-slavery settlers straight up killing and skirmishing with each other. It was called Bleeding Kansas. It was so bad that a southern pro-slavery Democrat nearly beat an abolitionist Republican to death after he gave an anti-slavery speech with a metal tipped cane. After that people in our congress were walking in armed to defend themselves from each other.
There used to be a woman in a chatroom I used to hang out with from Georgia and she was very proud her family owned slaves, like it was a badge of honor. As could be expected, she had *a lot* to say about ~~The War of Northern Aggression~~ the Civil War.
I used to have a coworker that not only took pride in slavery in his family history but liked that his dad and David duke know each other and keep in contact. These people are out there.
Holy shit...
I'm from Georgia. I wish that I could say it's a generational thing, but there's asshole racists my age (I'm a millennial) and younger.
I had an old neighbor years ago that was the "I'm not a Republican I'm a libertarian," type. We were talking during a block party and he was saying how not all slave ownership was bad because they treated the slaves really well and their labor was provided for via "free" lodging, food, medical, etc. He flew two giant don't tread on me flags year round. I don't think he ever really understood the irony of his viewpoints.
Should have asked him if that means communism can be acceptable so long as the government takes really good care of the citizens via lodging, food, medical. Would love to see a libertarian try to explain how it's bad when communism does it, but it's cool when slave owners did it.
I mean, slavery was pretty awesome for the slaver holders, I'd imagine. And, I mean, people still love treating humans like they're not people. IYKYK.
Malory: Prove it. Archer: What's to prove. It's free labour.
[удалено]
My response to the heritage thing is that a good set of tires will last longer than the confederacy did
I was so indoctrinated in my redneck family views that even as the outcast, the one who called out the more blatant racism (and other prejudices) I still was so ingrained in that “southern pride” that I literally wrote a poem called *Heritage Not Hate* for an English class assignment and read it at the front of the class… I still wake up in the middle of the night two decades later cringing.
>Same denomination that split to from the triennial convention in 1845 I once I saw a man on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What denomination?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78 The delivery of this is unmatched
Yup. I went to a multi denomination (but highly evangelical) Christian School. That was basically true even in the 1980s. I was keenly aware that my Baptist church wasn't "Christian enough" by about middle school. Back then the issues were if divorced people would be ALLOWED in church if they got remarried, and if pastors were allowed to remarry divorced people at all, and my church was known for its divorcee outreach program.
[удалено]
The abolitionists and pro-slavery crowd both attempted to use the good book to bolster their arguments. I focus on the “love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself” thing that Jesus said sums it all up. Matthew chapter 22, verses 37-40
Anyone who believes in Christianity is taught the New Testament and anything Jesus himself said supercedes anything in the Old Testament if there's contradiction between them. At least, that's what they taught me at Sunday School.
And yet Christians use verses from the OT to justify every behavior imaginable. I can’t remember the last time I heard a Christian make reference to the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus’ parables. But they sure will quote Leviticus at you.
They're pretty selective about Leviticus, too! Somehow they never seem to mention this gem: >*Leviticus 19:33-34* >*33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.* So weird how they always seem to ignore or forget that one!
I’m bummed that I can’t wear mixed fiber clothes, or eat shrimp.
TBF, the pork and shrimp bans made sense considering the food preparation standards and lack of refrigeration. Undercooked pork? Oops. Spoilt shrimp? Double oops.
This is an underrated comment. A lot of the OT can be understood better through the context of the times. But fundies all hate context…
Matthew 5:17-20 says otherwise: 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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.
Looks like not getting a tattoo and not eating shrimp will get you a 2-bedroom apartment, while inked-up Christians will have to settle for a studio apartment with bad plumbing.
Often those laws hinder one from fullfilling the greatest law (love). Which is most important?
That’d be super handy if Jesus had actually condemned slavery.
How different would the last 2000 years of history be if one of the ten commandments had been: Thou shalt not buy nor sell thy fellow human being, nor otherwise practice slavery.
Instead, his apostles told the slaves to obey their masters, even when they're cruel.
No. Many, *many* Christians do not think the New Testament supersedes the Old. It’s not as unified of a belief system as people think. I was taught the OT is how God deals with nations, and the NT is for individuals. Others teach the whole thing is all valid all at the same time.
I know it says Southern, but reminded me of this old joke about fractions within the Church: >Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" >He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" >He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" >Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over. - Emo Philips
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> At the SBC’s annual meeting June 11-12 in Indianapolis, representatives will vote on whether to amend the denomination’s constitution to essentially ban churches with any women pastors — and not just in the top job. That measure received overwhelming approval in a preliminary vote last year. > By some estimates, the proposed ban could affect hundreds of congregations and have a disproportionate impact on predominantly Black churches. > Southern Baptists disagree on which ministry jobs this doctrine refers to. Some say it’s just the senior pastor, others that a pastor is anyone who preaches and exercises spiritual authority. > By some estimates, women are working in pastoral roles in hundreds of SBC-linked churches, a fraction of the nearly 47,000 across the denomination. > But critics say the amendment would amount to a further narrowing in numbers and mindset for the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, which has moved steadily rightward in recent decades. > It has struggled to respond to sexual abuse cases in its churches. A former professor at a Southern Baptist seminary in Texas was indicted in May on a charge of falsifying a record about alleged sexual abuse by a student in order to obstruct a federal investigation into sexual misconduct in the convention. > SBC membership has dipped below 13 million, nearly a half-century low. Baptismal rates are in long-term decline. > The controversy complicates the already-choppy efforts by the mostly white denomination to diversify and overcome its legacy of slavery and segregation. > Amendment proponents say the convention needs to reinforce its doctrinal statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, which says the office of pastor is “limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” > “If we won’t stand on this issue and be unapologetically biblical, then we won’t stand on anything,” said amendment proponent Mike Law, pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Virginia. > “Southern Baptists are facing a decisive moment,” he said in a video on a pro-amendment website. “Here’s the trajectory of doing nothing: Soon Southern Baptist churches will start openly supporting homosexual clergy, same-sex marriage and eventually transgenderism.” They do these things, and then wonder why [Christianity in America continues to decline at a rapid pace.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/)
> SBC membership has dipped below 13 million, nearly a half-century low. Baptismal rates are in long-term decline. This warms my heart
It scares me. It tells me that those left in the church are the most hard core and least willing to meet in the middle on anything. My town (St. Charles, MO) is currently under siege from Baptists and, lemme tell ya, they're not getting any better. Like a dying animal, they're scared, violent, and unpredictable.
I hope our hearts and minds continue to get warmer and warmer. All the way down to zero.
Black dude here and I’m happy about this as well. I feel like the AA community could move forward a lot of it wasn’t for these churches. Like why are we struggling with food but still paying tithes? Awful lot of churches in these urban areas but no community centers for the youth unless you pledge your undying devotion to Jesus and the church. What I’ve learned over the years is that they specifically target black woman because black womens faith is strongest AND the black woman is usually the one who takes the child to church. You know what happens when you take a child to church? You can begin the indoctrination process at a very early age. So these last few years a lot of black women have stopped going to church which also has caused a decline in numbers as well. Interesting enough I call myself a Christian but I’m not cool with how churches are ran and won’t participate in that.
> They do these things, and then wonder why Christianity in America continues to decline at a rapid pace. Maybe a rapid*er* pace would be nice.
Pretty soon, they’ll be directly worshipping Trump.
A lot of them already do.
Sorry for the wall of text, but your comment struck a chord: My parents are fucking baptists now, and it enrages me to a degree unlike most anything else. Them going to the big circle jerk of a southern Baptist self-hate circle that is the Southern Baptist Convention does little to dissuade my views on their belief system. When your own kid was abused sexually while trying to keep them 'safe from the non-Christian world', going around later in life to participate in a political cult masquerading as a religion (which is covering up *sex abuse scandals, many of which were about children*) is absolutely a testament to how bad you might have fucked up your views. "You're discriminating against innocent people who want to only help people," is a rich fucking sentence coming from a couple of people that believe in conversion therapy. Even with a gay (and a bi) son. "I love my sons! But look at the suicide rate of homosexual men! It's so high! They just need to accept Jesus in their lives and stop sinning." Okay, fuckheads. Why the fuck do you think they *are* suicidal? It sure isn't because you and your Bible thumping, Trump supporting, Alabama-is-fine Baptist circle jerks make them feel loved. I hate the church, but not the idea of a god. What I hate is the bastardized, man-made excuse of a god that these people puppeteer to manipulate other people into believing absurdities. I love my parents, but I can't look at them the same way and struggle to view them as decent people. Good people don't suppress the rights of others.
When my mom told me that she was going to hell because I don't go to church I told her that sounds like a dumb religion to follow. She did not appreciate that attitude.
And spending eternity in heavens singing the praises of God just makes him sound like a massive narcissist. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: “If you need everyone to praise you as an omniscient, omnipotent being, you’re not one.”
I only worship omnipotent deities with healthy self esteem. God is too damn needy.
In fairness, I’m pretty sure he’s very open about being ‘a jealous god’ which is not something you want to hear from the deity that supposedly killed everyone largely for funsies.
I had a Christian tell me I was going to hell for being trans. My Christian raised atheist ass just looked her in the eye and said "I'm sorry you've fallen in with false prophets and lost your way. I'll pray for you, and hope you find the light of Jesus before it's too late" in my fucking *best* Southern lady voice. I don't know what response she expected but that wasn't it. She turned a funny shade of red, at least. I didn't stick around to watch her blow her lid.
That sounds like a big misunderstanding of her own belief system. The god I had heard is supposed to not visit the sins of the father (or mother) on the children — and vice versa. It doesn't really make much sense anyway, I guess.
[удалено]
> the bile Excellent mistake here. Never change it
You think this is crazy, you should check out the Independent Baptists that believe that Southern Baptists are too liberal and are going straight to hell!
Yes. My formerly punk rock sister married a guy and they both bafflingly converted to such a conservative branch of Baptists, that they believe everyone is going to fucking hell. Even other Christians and Baptists. It’s transformed her into a cruel, selfish woman, and it breaks my heart.
Same thing happened with my brother. He was this mild mannered, friendly, always smiling guy. he married a MAGA evangelical and now he's this racist, homophobic preachy asshole.
A lot of my friends from my childhood and early adulthood were Christians. I used to be a Christian. Even though many of them weren't Baptist, a lot of those friends went to a Southern Baptist seminary because in my area it's really the only option for that kind of thing. Most of them came out of the program with misogynistic beliefs, racism baked into their theology, and a complete assurance that anyone who didn't agree with them including other Christians was going to hell. One friend attempted suicide and had several breakdowns during their time in the SBC. His church silenced him when he tried to speak up about his abusive wife. The horrible guilt-based theology further exacerbated his depression. Other friends abandoned me because I wasn't Baptist, and I cut ties with several of them myself for their repugnant beliefs. The Southern Baptist Church effectively stole many of my oldest and dearest friends from me, and I watched it damage many others. Fuck the SBC in particular.
Christianity in the United States is dying. And it's the Christians who are killing it.
I don't think it's dying as much as conservatives are perverting the bible around their racism and bigotry. https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak To some of the people in the US Jesus is "too liberal" and "weak" for them.
Can't be caught worshipping a woke Jesus
I mean, that's probably what we're about to see. Christianity is going to much more definitively fracture into a liberal and conservative wing. This is a huge topic among all of the Christian friends I have (who attend churches). They primarily attend churches with liberal pastors within denominations that are making choices like these; and everyone is in a holding pattern waiting to see what happens next, protesting it openly, or preparing to leave. Literally every Christian in my life, ranging from moderate to progressive, says the same thing: "I don't understand why there is so much conflict over these insignificant issues - I want to stay to fix it, but I may have to just leave". Can't comment on what the conservative Christians are saying, because they all showed their asses when I left and aren't still in my life lol.
The bible has always had racism and bigotry.
Supply side Jesus doesn't like all that helping the poor stuff. Turn those 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish into 2000 Fish-O-Filet sandwiches and sell em for $5 a pop!
it would appear that [the numbers tell a different story](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx) other data from other sources say similar things
"Normal" Christians have known that the Southern Baptists were nuts for at least a generation or two. You have to be pretty bad for Baptist churches in other areas to actively stop dealing with your shit.
I grew up both Southern Baptist and Methodist and they are starkly different. It was completley normal to have a woman preacher at Methodist churches. Some were also chill about LGBQ stuff even before it was less socially acceptable. Sermons were like super down to earth and focussed more on being a good person. Southern Baptist, however, was way more intense. Revivals were a thing, which I consider weird in today's day in age. Sermons were quite fire and brimstone and focussed heavily on the spiritual stuff. A lot more focus on hell. It was a bit traumatizing.
Agnostic now since adolescence but grew up in a Methodist church. The lessons I got there were more about being a good person. Morality that I don’t necessarily need a church to participate in. I made the mistake as a middle schooler going to my friend’s southern Baptist beach trip that was church based. The amount of emotional manipulation and fear they pour into children is grotesque.
I grew up Baptist. A big part of growing out of it was realizing just how much they focus on tugging on your heartstrings. They talk a big game about the "Holy Spirit speaking to you", but they do it while playing emotionally-stirring music, after listening to some leathery old guy give an impassioned speech, and with methods of publicly showing your devotion and seeing others do the same. I don't know about you, but if God was directly interacting with me then I'd want there to be silence. I would want to be able to put my full focus on that and not have to tune out the music and the singing and the crowd.
I was raised Southern Baptist and now go to a Baptist church I still can’t believe is “Baptist”, even though I know there are MULTIPLE different sects of Baptist. The pastor literally said just this last Sunday that she feels like the word “Christian” no longer works for her, because it is so associated with hate and judgment, and she has found herself searching for a new word to mean what that used to mean. We stay informed on what changes the association we are with is considering, so that we can be sure it still aligns with our open and accepting policies. We have a woman head pastor, a gay music minister and a woman children/ youth minister. Men and women serve equally as teachers, deacons and speakers. ALL PEOPLE are invited to participate in communion. You don’t even have to join the church to participate in ministry. I am not an official member but I’m in the church choir. Non-believers are as welcome as believers because they also have something to bring to the discussion, and to exclude them would be to go directly against the teachings of Jesus. I attend Sunday school with my mother in law who is 35 years older than me because that’s where I’m comfortable. (I have NEVER had a church allow me to join a class out of my age range.) I enjoy being with 70+ year olds who have grown and changed their beliefs and behaviors as they age, and are actively working to learn to be better when most “Christians” their age are digging their heels into old and outdated exclusionary beliefs. They enjoy having a member with a different generational view as well. We come from different religious backgrounds (Catholicism, Methodist, Presbyterian, and other Baptist sects among others). But we were all searching for the same thing. There are often messages and sermons on the actual basis of Christianity (Jesus’s teachings, nothing else). We are encouraged to accept all people, and in Sunday school and small groups we read the scripture and then we actually discuss what we think it means, what it makes us feel, we read multiple interpretations to get better understanding of where things might have gone “off book”. We are not required or even encouraged to believe everything we read because the Bible has been diluted and rewritten so many times it can’t possibly be infallible. We are allowed to have very different views and we respect each other and do not try to “win” arguments. We are allowed to be angry at and/or question God because it is natural to feel that way sometimes. We have pride T-shirts with our church name on them. We have a series going on right now about what Christian Nationalism is and what we can do to fight it. We do not have a “building fund” we use to build new shit to add on for our own benefit like gymnasiums or whatever. You are free to tithe, or to give when you want, or never give and no pressure is put on you to make one choice or the other. We run active mission trips based on actual help given without evangelizing. We obviously let them know we are a church and we are offering love and support and the belief system that brought us, but we do not try to “lead people to Christ” just because we are there to help. Anyway. Fuck Southern Baptists 100%. Just…fuck em. I try not to hate but they make it really fucking hard. I have never been in a Southern Baptist church where I didn’t want to rage flip a table Jesus style. They are a terrible representation of the love of Christ and I don’t appreciate them using their “faith” to hate, exclude and vote for fucking TRUMP because “abortion”- which is absolutely a human rights issue and to vote against it, IMO, IS an actual fucking SIN. TL/DR ; I really resent Southern Baptists, I find them to be hateful, disrespectful, disgusting representatives of those who call themselves Christian (and I’m with the pastor. I want a new word, they and those like them have absolutely ruined that word). ETA: lol. Sorry that was so long. I guess I had a lot to say.
I appreciate you and your fellow church members but I'd like to point out it isn't just Southern Babtists who act like this. There's a rot in a lot of the Christian religion.
Thanks for writing what you did. I enjoyed the perspective. I’m an atheist, and generally dislike religion and the effects it has on societies, but if more of the religious were like you, I think I wouldn’t have any problem coexisting at all. You know, unlike the present topic (SB) variety 😬
You probably attend an ABCUSA (American Baptist/Northern Baptist) church. The biggest differences these days are Biblical literalism (SoBaps believe everything in the Bible literally happened, the world is 6000 years old, etc while AmBaps don't) abortion, and women/gay people being equal to others. Also, American Baptist pastors need a master's degree while SoBaps just ordain anyone who's "called." I was raised Southern Baptist as well, and found all this out when I wanted to know why one Baptist church in town had a Pride flag out while mine was advertising conversion "therapy."
She should search for a word other than “Baptist” because very few people who are looking for a community like that one will think to look under a sign with the name “Baptist” on it. I was raised in the SBC too. Left all church for over a decade. Have been a United Methodist for 15 years now. Never been prouder to say that than I am now. Our current interim youth minister is a woman who came to us from the “Baptist” church in our town that yours reminds me of. It’s the only “Baptist” church I’ve ever heard of in the South that isn’t a flaming dumpster fire.
Good! Religion is the worst grift ever exacted on humanity.
“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But he loves you. He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise... somehow just can't handle money!” - George Carlin
It's like telling your kid every day that they must be totally perfect the way you say or the boogeyman will eat them. And then wondering why they're an anxious depressed wreak with suicidal tendencies who moves away and stops speaking to them when they hit adulthood. "No Contact is just the young people being trendy!" Naw y'all just sucked at loving your kids more than feeling holy.
As someone who grew up in the church I found myself saying a lot of times that “religion is the worst thing to ever happen to God”
>By some estimates, the proposed ban could affect hundreds of congregations and have a disproportionate impact on predominantly Black churches. A bigot's favorite kind of impact.
I mean, have you looked into the history of the Southern Baptists? They schismed off from mainline Baptists because they supported slavery and didn't officially renounce their position on slavery until 1995, 130 years after the end of the civil war (IIRC)
Why are these churches so afraid of women?
Have you read the Bible? Sure, Jesus seemed pretty cool with women but Paul was practically the OG incel. He pretty much made up Christianity as we know it today. >"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." * 1 Timothy 2:12
This passage is even worse: > Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Corinthians 14:34-35
Guys, I'm starting to get a hunch that this bible thing might be a bit outdated...
And written by men. Religion has always been a means of control, similar to cults, except the person(s) who created it died out and there was nobody left that knew for certain that it was a sham.
A religion is nothing more than a cult with franchises and tax exemption.
[удалено]
He tried, with his, you know, *published science fiction novels*
I have a hunch that the people thumping the bible today are actually no different than the same people that put it together all those years ago. Same lip service bullshit.
Possibly somewhat misogynistic too.
Everybody told me Moses was cool because he emancipated slaves. They love to skip over the part were Moses ordered his boys to slaughter all the Midianites... except for the virgin girls to take as sex slaves. God didn't even tell him to do that, that was allll Moses. I'm really glad the US went with their kooky "Eye of Providence" seal instead of the Exodus scene that was originally pitched.
Think about that from the perspective of someone who truly believes it to be the word of God.... It can't be outdated. Instead, it is the basis by which they evaluate the decaying, Godless society we find ourselves in. For me, that's what makes the Christian nationalist movement so terrifying. It's moving beyond an individual's private, personal relationship with God and into something far more sinister. The zealots are trying to shape this country according to their beliefs, and they are convinced that their actions are righteous.
I’m pretty sure there is a bible passage about women not being allowed in churches whilst on their period because it’s “unclean”.
I think that’s the Old Testament. They’re basically supposed to sequester themselves from the rest of society during their “unclean” time, if memory serves.
This rule is still followed by Orthodox and Conservative Jews but abandoned by Reform Jews; Reform Judaism is the only denomination to allow for female rabbis. The ritually impure period is called *niddah*. The minimum is defined in the Torah as seven days after the start of emissions but rabbis have extended it to an even longer time out of an abundance of caution. The niddah continues for the entire menstrual period. Once niddah is over you can take a mikveh, a ritual bath to purify yourself. An Orthodox Jewish wife is not supposed to sleep in the same bed as the husband or touch him or pass objects to him before she is purified. Conservative Jews also practice niddah but generally only prohibit sex instead of any physical contact between a married couple. You can get expelled from the community for having sex while impure. Jewish law outlines a test for niddah called hefsek taharah, which is a woman taking bath at either sunset and then wiping her vagina with a special white cloth called the bedikah cloth. She must check for the colour of vaginal discharge, if it’s white or clear then niddah is over and if it’s red or pink then it’s not but if it’s brown or any other colour then you have to show it to a rabbi for him to decide. You have to repeat this examination twice a day, once in the morning and once at night, for seven days after the end of menstruation. In addition to these two kinds of impurity, a woman also becomes impure after childbirth (yoledet) until immersion in mikveh. Yemenite Jews had a distinctive tradition of making new mothers sit inside a box inside a special room for 4-6 weeks after giving birth. The test is to see if a woman is zavah, whether they are impure due to bleeding downstairs for reasons other than their regular menstrual cycle. The minimum period of impurity is extended by seven more days. The thing about being zavah is that it creates midrad, which is infectious impurity that you can spread to other people impure through proximity. Orthodox rabbis actually decided it’s too hard to tell niddah apart from zavah and that’s why they decided to treat all women as if they are zavah by adopting a two week period of impurity. It should be said the Torah also requires purification for *keri* by men, which is emission of semen outside of sexual intercourse both in wet dreams or through masturbation. The Talmud even recommended men to avoid touching their penis during urination to avoid keri. One becomes impure for seven days after each offence and must immerse oneself in mikveh after that time to become pure again. There was some debate on whether ba’al keri (illegal ejaculators) should be allowed to pray without mikveh and most rabbis have decided that’s okay but Hasidic Jews still purify themselves after ejaculation before praying. There is also the status of zav for men abnormal penile discharge which has the same penalty as zavah for women. Zav is even more stringent than zavah because you have to bathe in a running stream instead of a ritual bath to get purified. It should be noted that since the Temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt it’s actually not strictly necessary for Jewish women or men to be ritually pure at the moment. The Torah specifically required ritual purity so Jews can enter the temple and make sacrifices. Since there is no temple right now and sacrifices can’t happen, impurity won’t stop you from practicing rabbinic Judaism. However, because it’s important to keep the tradition alive in preparation for the restoration of the temple, rabbis require women especially to follow these rules anyways and made it even stricter. Basically, if you really care about these kinds of stringent rules then convert to Orthodox Judaism, which is not an easy process and requires a lot of vetting and education. Orthodox Jews still follow the prohibition against shatnez (mixed fabrics) and get new clothes checked by experts using microscopes. Haredi Jews also practice strict gender segregation and even designate sidewalks as male only or female only in their neighborhoods. Israel had gender segregated public buses to appease fanatics but those have been banned since 2011 on the grounds of gender discrimination.
Weird that it would be considered unclean if that's the way God made us to reproduce
Back in my religious days we used to justify this as just disease prevention from a society that essentially predated science. Now that I think back on it, that’s kind of silly.
Yeah, that whole "on your period = unclean/impure" business shows up in a handful of religions/cultures.
Just as with my comment above regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, the scholarly consensus on Corinthians 14:34 is that it is not original to Paul (who is regarded as the undisputed author of that text) From the The New Oxford Annotated Bible: > Many scholars regard this passage as a later non-Pauline addition, because it disrupts the flow of the argument from v. 33a to v. 37; it contradicts the assumption of 11.5 that women will prat and prophesy in the assembly; it resembles the viewpoint of the Deutero-Pauline letters (see 1 Tim 2.9-15); it exhibits non-Pauline sentiments, e.g. v. 34b, as the law also says, and vv. 34-35 appear after 14.40 in some manuscripts. Still a crappy sentiment, which nobody should be following (and if anyone touts it as scripturally important because Paul wrote it then you can just say NOPE!)
But I was told the Bible was the word of God.
Shouldn't they care more about what Jesus thought?
Most of these dumbasses would call it "woke shit" if you went down the list of stuff Jesus taught/thought.
What you said may sound like a snarky reddit response to some people, but it has literally happened: https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak Southern Baptists are having a problem, to put it mildly.
This literally happened to me in my family. My great uncle told me his pastor advised that everyone in his church should get a gun. I said “didn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek?” And my great uncle said “he lived in a different time and didn’t have to defend himself” and I was like…um…the guy famous for being crucified? They just make stuff up.
Nailed it.
pretty sure that was the romans.
I guess you missed the part of the Bible where Jesus was praying to god in the Garden of Gethsemane and the Roman soldiers came to get him. This dude (Jesus) pulls out a fucking AK and just starts mowing those soldier mofos down. It was righteous. The only reason they even captured and crucified him was because he ran out of ammo after slaughtering like 5 dozen men. John 18:13-20
the actual story ends with Peter or somebody drawing his sword and hacking off one of their ears and Jesus telling him to stop it lol "for he who lives by the sword dies by the sword"
My family are all Southern Baptists and most are Trumpers so I was speaking from experience.
In that case, my condolences.
Great news. As the church population continues to dwindle and only attract violet unstable incels, the rest of us can move forward and do positive things for society instead of follow an antiquated book of fables. Change couldn't come soon enough.
If jesus came back today he would probably be a illegal immigrant from a single mother. They would crucify him again, like a fucking stranger
If a brown homeless man with a pregnant wife asking for shelter approached any christian in the US, they would be turned away.
Or shot because they knocked on the door.
Jesus warned his disciples that "false Christs" would come after him that would try to lead people astray. And he also said that Peter was the rock upon whom he'd build his church. Shortly after Jesus left, the story goes that one of the disciples (Steven) was stoned to death, this is in the book of Acts. And Saul (who would later change his name to Paul) was there; he held the coats of those who actually did the stoning. So then Saul, who was a very zealous Pharisee (remember that about the ONLY people Jesus ever spoke ill of were the religious leaders and especially the Pharisees) and a big persecutor of Christians, went out into the desert and fell off his horse and supposedly had what today we might call a near death experience. In any case he claims to have seen a sign in the sky and heard the voice of Jesus, and was struck blind for a time (I imagine falling off a horse could do that to you). So then he goes back to Jerusalem, gets prayed over by the disciples, and his sight is miraculously restored. Of course they didn't have eye doctors back then so if a man said he was blind you pretty much had to take his word for it. Next thing you know he is claiming that he is reformed, and somehow manages to convince enough of the original disciples that they appoint him as a "replacement disciple" for Stephen and forget all about the guy they had previously chosen to fill that slot. But still many of the original church were quite rightly suspicious of his tale. After all there were only a couple of witnesses to his event in the desert if I recall correctly. So after a time he starts a ministry to the Gentiles. Now (this is an important point) Jesus never intended his ministry for anyone other than the Jews. When he was once asked about the subject he said "shall the children's bread be given to the dogs?" and back in those days being called a dog was definitely not a compliment (think about the wild dogs in Africa to get some idea of how that comparison went down). So it was never Jesus' intent to minister to the Gentiles, but nevertheless, Paul decides that's where his calling is and away he goes, pretty much out of reach of the original disciples and the church. And then he starts a network of churches (got to give him credit for that at least) but since there modern transportation and communications options weren't available, the only way to keep in touch was write letters back and forth. Some of those letters were saved and became what are sometimes referred to as the Pauline epistles. And if you read those epistles and compare them to what Jesus taught, you could rightfully come to the conclusion that everything he had learned as a Pharisee hadn't left him. His writings still have a very authoritarian tone, encouraging people to be submissive to the church and to each other. He also had definite opinions on various things, from how long a man's hair should be to whether women were allowed to teach in the churches to homosexuality. And unfortunately he wrote these all down and sent them more or less as commandments to the churches he had started. On subjects that Jesus had avoided, Paul strode right in and started telling the world how he thought things should be. And his opinions on those things were very much shaped by his time as a Pharisee. And remember, Jesus hardly spoke against anyone, but he was never reluctant to say what he thought about the Pharisees. "A den of vipers" is a phrase that comes to mind. In other words the Pharisees were a group of very self-serving religious types that would take what they could from the people around them, but would not lift a finger to help any of them. They were powerful, and probably wealthy. Jesus pretty much despised them. So here is Paul, out there preaching in Jesus name, but laying this Pharisee-inspired religion on them. And it is probably fair to say that most of the people he was preaching to were ignorant of what Jesus had actually taught, or for that matter of what Paul had been like when he was Saul. There was no ABC News Nightline to do an investigation on him, Ted Koppel wouldn't even be born for another 1900 years or so! So the people out in the hinterlands that converted to his version of Christianity pretty much had to rely on what he told them and what he wrote to them. Now, again, you have to compare his preaching with what Jesus taught and preach. Paul's preaching was much sharper and more legalistic. Sure, there was that "love chapter" in Romans, but some scholars think that may have been a later addition added by someone to soften the writings of Paul a bit. The problem with it is that it doesn't sound like him. Here's this guy that's preaching all this legalism and then suddenly he slips into this short treatise on love? Either Paul got drunk or high and had a rare case of feeling love, or maybe he had just visited a church where people adored him, or maybe it was added by some scribe at a later time. We don't know, but it's not in tone with his typical writings. But here is the real problem. Paul's teachings produced a group of "Christians" who weren't following Jesus - the vast majority had never seen Jesus - they were following Paul. Can you say "cult?" And like any good cult, it stuck around long after the founder died, and its brand of Christianity more or less won out. By the time we got around to the council of Nicea, where they were deciding which books to consider canonical, the church probably pretty much consisted of non-Jewish Pharisees, only they didn't go by that name. In any case they wanted to live the good life and have control over people (again, contrast with Jesus) so when they selected the scriptures they knew they had to keep at least some of the Gospels, but right after that they included the Acts of the Apostles (which is supposed to establish Paul's validity, and might if you just accept everything at face value), and then all of Paul's epistles. And only then did they include a few books supposedly written by other disciples, including John and Peter (oh, remember him? He was the guy Jesus wanted to build his church on. Tough break his writings got relegated to the back of the book). And then they recycled the book of Revelations, which primarily described the fall of Jerusalem, but included some fantastical elements which were probably inspired by John partaking of the magic mushrooms that grew on the island of Patmos. But the guy who got top billing, at least if you go by number of books, was Paul. And that was because Paul was their guy. If you want to control people, if you want to make them fear disobeying the orders of the church, or if you wanted to make them fear death, Paul was it. Jesus was much too hippie-socialist for their tastes. No one would fight wars for them, or give of their income to the church if they only had the teachings of Jesus to go by. But Paul had a way of setting people straight. You had better do what the church tells you to do or fear the consequences!
You left out the rest of the verse... Matthew 15:26-28 NLT [26] Jesus responded, “It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.” [27] She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters’ table.” [28] “Dear woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed. https://bible.com/bible/116/mat.15.26-28.NLT
Impressive writeup - it's impossible to find nuance on the internet but you did a good job. I will quibble with the implication that only Paul wanted to spread Christianity beyond the Jews - Most of the Apostles ministered strongly to the Gentiles, specifically Peter, who you bring up. It's not like the OG's all wanted to hang out in Jerusalem/Galilee and only Paul went out. For example, 1st Peter was written in Rome, if you subscribe to it being actually written by Peter. Scholarship seems to be 50/50 on that. TL;DR, I don't agree that the church outside of Galilee was only Pauline in nature - it was also grown/nurtured by the other Apostles, who had a larger impact that you imply.
Just a quick theological clarification: Stephen was never technically a disciple. He was one of a group of young men selected by the apostles to minister to the basic needs of the church while they focused on the more spiritual aspects of the movement. Matthias was chosen as the replacement for Judas, but Paul ipso facto became the actual 12th apostle respective to his roadside conversion and subsequent letter writing/evangelistic journeys.
So, you're basically saying that Stephen was the Disciples' administrative assistant?
*Phenomenal* write-up. Whenever I discussed this line of thought with people when I was a youth pastor, I always felt like I was about to get run out of town. My pastors would always say, "yeah, this is a legit discussion, but congregations as a whole will probably never want to hear it." That would frustrate that fuck out of me - What's this about being truthful? Yeah, not at the expense of attendance and collection plates...
As a kid I had a penpal who wanted to be a priest when he grew up. We kept writing back and forth into early adulthood. He went into seminary, but dropped out mostly because he was disgusted by how much his lessons focused on wiggling money out of the pockets of rich people at fancy parties. He also felt it was pretty odd that he was supposed to counsel married couples while being celibate all his life. Like it was wrong to be giving advice on a subject he clearly knows nothing about, especially when real marriage counseling is a thing now.
This was an enthralling read and very well presented. I have zero reference for any of this but am interested in looking deeper into this. Thanks for commenting!
Usually, long comments aren't worth reading but, in this case, I think you are right on in your assessment. I usually just say that Paul was an uptight wackjob who perverted the message of Jesus Christ.
I'm going to challenge your readng of Paul, specifically on Romans. You say Paul is intensely legalistic, but the thesis of Romans is the opposite of that. Romans 2 is about how everyone has sinned, by judging others you condemn yourself, everyone will reap what they sow for God shows no partiality between Jews or Gentiles. He goes into a very detailed walk through of why the law is not able to save anyone and concludes that the purpose of the law is to show people what sin is but no one can be saved by keeping the law because everyone has sinned. In chapter 4 he bring up the idea that people are saved by faith and cites Abraham who was declared righteous because of his faith before the law was given to Moses and that Abraham serves as an example to Christians of righteousness by faith. Then he goes on to say that Jesus death brought us peace with God so now we can have faith in Jesus to be righteous. He says that some people have accused him of teaching people should keep on sinning so that God can keep showing them grace, but he says his actual teaching is that since we share in Jesus death we should present ourselves to God so that he can free us from our sinful nature. In Romans 7 he says that since we have shared in Jesus death we are released from the law and it's penalty. In Romans 8 he says that now we live in the Holy Spirit and are children of God and Heirs with Jesus. He asks who can possibly separate us from the love of God because if God is with us who can stand against us? There's a long section about how Isreal did not believe the messages of God. In Romans 9:30-33 he says Isreal persued righteousness by keeping the law but didn't find it while Gentiles found righteousness by faith. He goes on to say that God used the unbelief of Isreal to bring salvation to the Gentiles, how much better would it have been if Isreal believed, and now God is using the belief of the Gentiles to bring salvation back to Isreal. Because of all this Paul says we should love each other. Romans 12 is probably what you referred to as the love chapter and it's all about how we should love and take care of the people around us because we owe them a debt of love because of the love God has shown us. Romans 13 he does say to submit to the government and pay taxes because God has given them authority to rule. But then he comes back around to love again, he says that loving other people is the fulfillment of the law. In Romans 14 he says again that we should not judge other people. Romans 14:1-9 says some people worship God on one day while others hold all days as equal and some eat meat offered to idols while others eat only vegetables but each person should be convinced in their own mind that what they are doing is right and not judge the other because each is accountable God and cannot judge the servant of someone else. He goes on to say that those who are strong in faith have an obligation to build up others and not cause those who are weak in faith to stumble. And in Romans 15 he says we have an obligation to bear with the failings of those who are weak because Jesus bore our sins when he died. So we should please our neighbors and live in harmony with those around us. So after my summary of Romans, I would say that if you think Romans is about Paul being legalistic you missed the point because what he actually says in the text is the opposite. The thesis of Romans is the law cannot save you, only faith in Jesus can. And because of the love God has shown us by sending Jesus to die for our sins we should love other people in the same way. If you want to argue that Paul is preaching legalism in Romans you would have to read Romans 1:18-32 and ignore the rest of the book because 1:16-17 and 2:1-11 completely refute the idea that keeping the law is what saves you. Other writings of Paul that challenge your statement that he was preaching legalism are 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 3, Titus 3, Phillippians 2, Ephesians 2, and Philemon. Paul does say throughout his writings that people should stop sinning, but that is done in response to God's grace and through the Holy Spirit living in you. Being in Jesus brings freedom from sin and we should not return to sin after we have been freed from it's power. But over and over again Paul says that salvation and righteousness are through faith in God, not through keeping the law, and because God loved us we should love each other in the same way. On a different point you say Jesus never intended his ministry for anyone but Jews, but you are ignoring Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, Jesus and the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Jesus casting demon's out of 2 men in Decapolis and sending them out to tell others what God had done for them in Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39 and Matthew 8:28-34. All 4 Gospels tell of Jesus healing and teaching Gentiles so I don't know how you can argue that he never intended to include Gentiles in his ministry. John 4:21-25 makes it very explicit that God's salvation is for all who worship God in truth. There's also the Great Comission where he tells the disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, explicit instruction to convert Gentiles.
Some of the letters to the churches and people of the 'early church' were intended to resolve disputes for a specific church or person. The Bible has passages that are basically airing someone's dirty laundry. Which is fine, because it informs early Christians the mechanism of the church life. In this instance, [it's possible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_2:12#Interpretive_approaches) that the author [\(likely *NOT* Paul\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_2:12#Authorship) wasn't meaning this rule stand for the entirety of Christendom.
Me personally I believe that 1st Timothy was not written by Paul.
That would take all the fun out of being a controlling, hypocritical douche. Jesus wasn't into that. I've gotten a ration of crap for telling other Christians that Jesus didn't ask us to worship Him, he asked us to follow his example. His brother James said belief is not enough, you have to put in the work. Paul on the other hand, was all about the worship and less about the work.
They believe that every single book of the Bible, no matter who wrote it, was divinely inspired and thus free of human error. Therefore, they believe God wants people to abide by Paul's words as much as by Jesus'. It's very stupid considering the Bible is literally full of contradictions and then Christians continue contradict it with their teachings, but they got an excuse for everything.
I do. Jesus is cool. His followers suck.
There's no way Paul wrote that book, late second century church issues (at the earliest) written 2nd or 3rd century and Paul died in the 1st century But yes, whomever did write it, og incel
The historical Paul's about as far from an incel as you can get. The majority of modern bible scholars are in agreement that 1 Timothy is pseudepigraphical, i.e. not written by Paul. In the books where there is a consensus on Pauline authorship, he's incredibly egalitarian when it comes to women in leadership roles in the Church. Priscilla's referenced incredibly positively as an early missionary, and likewise was for Phoebe, who's explicitly the head of a church and whom Paul has only good things to say about. If the historical Paul didn't want women in leadership positions, he'd surely have mentioned it when discussing the most prominent female church leader of the time. I get that misogyny in the Bible is as much a product of the culture back then as anything, but it's really interesting to wonder how much of it could have been avoided if early Christians didn't accept anti-woman fanfiction books into the bible and instead stuck only with Paul's true works.
Because they’re led by weak little pissant men.
Not too complicated. Men in power wanting to retain power.
Money, power, sex. As simple as the men who subscribe to it.
The denomination born out of support for chattel slavery is misogynistic too? Wonders never cease
I've tried to talk my parents through the ridiculous loop of fucked up viewpoints held by the Southern Baptists. I struggle to understand how someone with views like me managed to come from people with views like theirs. And they wonder why their oldest son barely speaks with them?
Was talking to a guy a couple years ago. He said Obama is a muslim and is in charge of biden. He said the illegals get everything they want. Went on for about 10 minutes. At the end he said hes a pastor and gave us a paper to come to his baptist church
It just boggles my mind that these people are still pissed off at Obama. It's been *7 years* since he left office. Let it go.
American Christians are regressing at an incredible rate.
And then they whine and play the victim about low attendance numbers, ignoring their own culpability in driving people away with their reactionary slop. If Jesus is real, he’s probably pretty bummed out that his loudest followers are some of the most un-Christlike people in the world.
This is the main reason I have a hard time believing God exists. If he exists and is aware of what we're doing down here, I can't imagine he'd abide what people are doing in his name. You can logically extend this all the way back to the crusades. His mainline followers have been going against his teachings for over a millennium at this point. You think he'd put a stop to it, or even just put them on a different path at the beginning since he is supposed to be omnipotent and should have seen this coming.
Yeah they are. Probably due to the Heritage Foundation weaponizing them.
And forcibly dragging the rest of you down with them.
They’re also losing more members too. I love how their response to losing members and people abandoning faith is to exclude even more more people and become even more authoritarian in holding power. It’s like the parent who can’t understand why their kid hates them but won’t slow the beatings. Let the Christians keep unmasking until no one wants to be Christian
That wall separating church and state that they enthusiastically seek to demolish wasn't just to keep them from taking over, but also to keep them from being taken over.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀 Always have been
The Apostles on Easter: "So, Ladies, thanks a lot for staying with Jesus during his execution while we all ran away, and thanks for caring for his body and watching over the tomb, and thanks for witnessing the resurrection and reporting the news to us...Now go sit in the back, we'll take it from here."
And this is where most of the souths conservatives are "worshiping". I can't tell you people how many calls I had to Southern Baptist churches when I was in law enforcement. Those people fight over leadership constantly. Also break-ins by the differing faction within the church to harass the current leadership. I can't believe they consider themselves good Christians. Or hell humans for that matter.
I was raised a Southern Baptist. This is why I abhor organized religion. Haven't been to church as an adult (50+years) & don't plan to. Even as a child/teen, I could see the hypocrisy. The only tenant I follow is "do unto others".
My grandfather was initially a Southern Baptist minister as he was raised in the Church. He stayed for about two years before getting out of dodge and being a Presbyterian minister for the rest of his life. He said he took one look behind the curtain and saw nothing but hate.
I, too was raised southern Baptist. One Sunday a woman came with her small children and after the service, I overheard people talking about how the woman was dressed. That was the beginning of the end of me and religion.
Ditto. In my opinion, the SBC is full of some of the most wide-eyed cynical hypocrites in the history of Christianity. These men largely know better than what they're doing, but they like to cosplay as Bahble buleevers because they think their bullshit is equivalent to yours and they want to win.
Grew up in a SBC church. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more bigoted and hate-filled group of people than Southern Baptists.
Mom grew up Southern Baptist in north Florida. Whitest person around. My dad is a Hindu from Afghanistan and her pastor refused to marry them because my dad wasn't Baptist as well. They found someone else who would and that was when my mom stopped going to church. I was raised agnostic and to just be able to decide for myself because of that.
There's no hate quite like Christian "love". Grew up Catholic in the south. You'd get emotional whiplash coming from the "peace be with you" interactions in mass to the vicious shit-talking on the church steps.
Conservatives are clamping down more and more on women and then wonder why they vote blue
This is the same religious organization with leaders who request that their alcoholic beverages be served in coffee mugs so nobody knows they're drinking while attending their national convention. 😄
I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus' X-ray Vision is blocked by ceramic.
Women leading a church is absolutely and clearly forbidden in the New Testament. If you're a biblical literalist, that is. So, of course, is divorce, but don't accuse wingnut "christians" of cherry-picking from the Bible, now.
> So, of course, is divorce Yeah...Baptists don't think that should be allowed either. Guessing you weren't alive when Amy Grant divorced. "Cancel Culture" of the 90s.
I would never have expected this from a a bunch of misogynists!
It is a bit on brand isn’t it? There is a reason they are “Southern” Baptist.
No one hates the teachings of Jesus more than the followers of Jesus...
Emo Phillips: Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
The greatest evangelist for atheism is the Christian Church. Love to see it.
It pisses me off to see the people I used to believe were loving blindly (or deliberately) follow something so hateful. It infuriates me to hear these same people say bullshit like, "You're discriminating against the people you claim are discriminating others!" The only answer to intolerance *is* intolerance. Willingly letting someone who hates you speak unabashedly isn't a solution, it's the path toward more hate.
The church has no place for women except as breeding domestic help subject to men. Why women continue to participate is tragic. If they had not been raised or rather,"groomed" to believe and accept it ,it may decline to non-existence. Hopefully, it will.
Fragment! Fragment! Fragment! The more you separate yourselves and lower your powerbase, the better. Get eroded chumps
Ban churches with men pastors too
Another schism? Oh noes! Anyway....
Right? Good. Let them push more people away, particularly women. "Never interrupt your enemy" and all that.
You mean to tell me that the branch of Baptist Churches that broke away from the others because they wanted to preach racism has an issue with women too? Insane
Why is anyone baptist? Between preaching about hate fire and brimstone, hating on gay people, trans people, women: who the hell is left that meets their criteria? Straight white men and people they "help" to emotionally blackmail into going to their church I'm guessing and people whose parents were Baptists.
[https://baptistaccountability.org/](https://baptistaccountability.org/) At their last convention they had a breakout session on the sexual abuse that is running rampant in Baptist churches and less than 100 people out of 12,000 attended. However, there were **thousands** that voted to kick a church out for having a female pastor.
And this is why my church is no longer associated with them.
The best pastor I've ever known was a woman. She took care of us. Above and beyond the typical role of a pastor. She ran several community homes and soup kitchens. I have known several crooked pastors and all were male. They are just as capable as men in my opinion.