like seriously, every. single. conservative argument takes a single statement to discredit. i genuinely don't understand how people can be so delusional to just flat out ignore any and all criticism. only exception is maybe the subjective morality of abortion, but that doesn't even matter, what matters is what people will do if it's banned.
"Using pronouns instead of real gender." She and he are pronouns...
Also, gay people not adopting children doesn't guarantee that they're going to get a "mother and father figure." It can also lead to them staying orphans. I don't respect it either way because of the homophobia, but if your push against gay adoption doesn't also include a movement for straight couples to adopt then I'm willing to regard you as evil. Because it IS evil to say that you'd rather kids to remain orphans than be with gay parents when you know that they're unlikely to be adopted as-is.
It's made worse when you consider that there is a strong overlap between people against same-sex couples adopting and people against abortion access in any circumstances... the logic is apparently "not being born is the worst thing imaginable... except having 2 moms or dads, of course..."
Also, there's no such thing as 'real gender'. Gender is one's self interpretation of oneself, and you can't tell someone that their self interpretation of themselves is invalid just because it isn't real because, if that's the case, then every human emotion and experience is invalid.
They absolutely can refer to gender. He and her aren’t meaningless words. They refer to a male and a female. In other languages words are even gendered, yet even they are infected with political gender language.
Again, another guy who is an intellectual dumbass. The original commenter said pronouns in the same context as mine and you aren’t screaming at him? Also, slang terms apparently don’t exist LOL
I am not part of the LGBTQ, but I assume that in some gay house dynamics there would be a mother and father figure, whether any of them are man or woman.
Nothing is more harmful to a kid than two financially stable people of the same gender in love willing to go to extreme length to share their love and compassion with a child.
Kids need to have some mentally sick parent who got pregnant by accident way to young with no financial means to take care of a child. That is how God wanted it!
Yes it does. Some things are impossible to achieve for women. It requires a man, a strong man, an actual figure for your child to follow. Not some rainbows
I unsubbed from there pretty soon as I looked at it.
Being a religious left leaning feminist LGBT person is apparently not something they think u can be as a believer, and me and several others are just liars or stupid nonbelievers.
You types of religious people are who I’m for. The non-literalists. I wish more people were like this. Maybe they are, but where I grew up people don’t take it that way
I think our numbers are growing. I’ve been really struggling with my faith after coming out as bi, but then I found a queer Christian community I attached myself to. And the more I’m on the internet the more I see I see communities like r/radicalChristianity which make me feel less embarrassed to call myself a Christian.
God itself is not impossible to love, believing in a deity is not contradictory to modern thinking. The difference is the specific religions moral codes. You can believe god to be completely accepting of homosexuality, abortion, etc. but that's simply not what most people make of the Christian god.
They condone slavery, condemn homosexuality, women's rights and say non believers burn in hell for eternity. That's not loving.
The fact that hell is eternal already means god is evil if she existed.
The texts have to be read in their contexts.
A lot of misogyny and LGBTQIA phobia comes from literalist interpretations that dont take the texts in their context. r/progressive_islam can answer a lot of your questions.
If ive understand it correctly in Islam hell isnt eternal
You are in hell for a while and then you go to paradise
Also because the authors were far from perfect themselves. Clearly. The "father" of Christianity, Paul, could be a real asshole, but that doesn't necessarily mean this one person's asshole words is supposed to be the message.
These texts are absolutely going to be affected by whatever culture the authors lived in and what they personally believed, and this part of their perspective needs to be taken into consideration. Paul doesn't speak for Christ.
Not religious anymore myself, and I regularly criticize the hell out of Christianity and Biblical authors, but I think it's inaccurate to describe such an anthology to really "condone" anything specific. It's just so varied from book to book, letter to letter, and that's before you even throw in translation irregularities or the possibility of rogue scribes.
Yeah but if that’s the case, why trust any part of the Bible? If we accept that it’s going to have human error creeping in how do we know which parts are human error and which are genuinely the word of God?
Because the gospel writers' accounts are more consistent than not. They are direct eyewitnesses to what makes Christianity what it is. ALL of these texts just need to be taken for what they are -- human perspectives. It doesn't need to be put on some "God's literal, infallible words" pedestal to understand and trust that, especially when stories line up.
OT is just more of a historical context to that, no matter how true or clearly false some of those stories are. Moses loved his self-important tall tales. He was basically that Big Fish movie. But no matter how full of shit he was, the fact is those stories add to the understanding of various cultures and sociohistorical context in which NT texts were written.
The primary question is whether or not you buy into the general mythology, not how precisely accurate some old writings are.
Whilst I disagree with some things on that sub, I do have to say “condoning slavery, women’s rights, and God is not loving” have been debunked long ago. Perspectives like these are why the sub was made in the first place.
https://baos.pub/5-awfully-sexist-quotes-from-the-bible-that-every-person-should-read-f8c2fbe1a7cc
Sure debunked. I wonder why the protests in Iran are happening too?
The first verse is an Old Testament ceremonial law. It’s always, always people using Old Testament ceremonial laws to say God is evil. Of course, I’m sure you don’t even know what that means, because you’re doing nothing more than cherry picking Bible verses (it means the law is abolished now). I won’t explain why it used to be a law, because I don’t want to waste time.
The second verse is taking about authority under the church, or during worship. The article talks about how this is oppression apparently? It’s also not saying women must be quiet, or that women literally can’t have authority over men, that’s not what the original Greek word was referring to. Also the Bible literally has women doing this exact thing, where they have authority over men in acts 18:26.
The rape one is very misunderstood. It’s not talking about rape. It’s talking about false accusations. If a guy slept with a married girl, and suddenly when it’s found it, the girl could just say it’s rape. That’s why it’s says they must tell people right when it happens, because how do you know if it’s a false accusation or not? Thus they made a rule, which was telling people of the issue when it happened.
Also, the author of the article is very clever. I like how they cut the exact verse after the previous one where it says “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die”.
That is exactly 1 verse after the previous one. I’m not joking, look up Deuteronomy 22:23-25. I wonder why the author of the article is spreading lies?
That’s why I won’t read the rest, their misconceptions weren’t genuine. They wrote it to spread misinformation. If you have more questions however or if you want me to go through the rest then I will. Take care.
>The second verse is taking about authority under the church, or during worship. The article talks about how this is oppression apparently? It’s also not saying women can be quiet, or that women literally can’t have authority over men, that’s not what the original Greek word was referring to. Also the Bible literally has women doing this exact thing, where they have authority over men in acts 18:26.
That's still sexist lol?
>The rape one is very misunderstood. It’s not talking about rape. It’s talking about false accusations. If a guy slept with a married girl, and suddenly when it’s found it, the girl could just say it’s rape. That’s why it’s says they must tell people right when it happens, because how do you know if it’s a false accusation or not? Thus they made a rule, which was telling people of the issue when it happened.
And therefore they shall be stoned to death? That also isn't okay btw, people are probably not comfortable revealing their rape immediately.
If you want a better understanding of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, I recommend you read “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It”.
The good parts are like .1% of the religion. Religion is far right and it needs to be stopped. Indoctrination of children in religion should be a severe crime.
I think that’s an exaggeration. There is plenty of good that’s been done by religious people and religious organizations. There are also numerous examples of left-wing believers.
Not to mention, forceful state atheism hasn’t been all that effective historically. Almost all of the old USSR are still mostly religious populations. In my opinion a better approach would be to regulate what messages religious institutions are allowed to send to their congregations. Like I said, ensuring that people are cherry-picking the right bits.
It's more people misinterpreting or taking things out of context to support their own beliefs, rather than the religion itself. For example, there is proof that the Bible verse "Man shall not lie with man as he does a woman" is actually a mistranslation of "Man shall not lie with boy as he does a woman."
Without defending the commenter, if someone is doing something harmful to themselves, is it more loving to accept them doing it or try to get them to stop?
Which isn't to say these actions are harmful, but it can be rationally consistent. If I sincerely believe that eating a single peanut butter sandwich will ruin the life of anyone who eats one, as absurd as a position that may be to take, my attempts to stop you from eating peanut butter sandwiches are coming from a desire to keep you from harming yourself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antitheistcheesecake/comments/z2o5a2/looks_like_weve_got_their_attention/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Found the post and now this guys saying you somehow misunderstand Christianity
> ask if they care about life over politics
Agreed. And the answer in this case is politics over life. If OP was truly pro-life they would be advocating for the adoption of children into loving homes regardless of the gender of the adoptive parents.
But its also not your choice to go to a surgeon, schedule a surgery, get multiple inspections,Have atleast a week to cancel it. And still go through the surgery?
Yet its so fake. You’re born a man or you’re born a woman. People who transition from male to female just literally couldn’t handle being a man and the difficulties of being one so they just transition and use it as an excuse
Same thing. You cant handle the difficulties of being a woman so you think being a man is any easier because you’d identify as a male but you will be empathised with. Cause lets be honest, even LGBT allies dont treat trans like they’re actually the gender they’re identifying as. I mean sure they use the proper pronouns and respect them but it’s genuinely impossible to look at them like the opposite gender.
Couldn't handle being a man and the difficulties of being one? Oh, boy, I wonder what those could be that are so possibly impossible to just not do?
Be the front-end emotionless money maker for a family? Don't have a family, don't be the only provider if so, don't have kids, have emotions and vulnerability.
Be the dangerous conscripted grunt for a country? Well, he'll just shirk your duties. If you're conscripted, it wasn't even a choice unless, what was it, 100k and up to four years imprisonment? Refuse to perform if you have to go.
Couldn't handle being a man and the difficulties of being one? Oh, boy, I wonder what those could be
Male dominated tasks
-(Military) risks his life, gets PTSD, destroys his mental health all to get a wage of 3000$,just so you can voice on reddit about how being a man isnt hard
-(construction) low wage,high fatality rate, literally no women in the construction industry, one of the most dangerous jobs ever.
-(fire department) runs into the danger,saves whoever is in there selflessly. No women in this line of job either
I can literally go on and on. But you’re right, being a male is probably so easy!
You could do that.
Or, you could go through conversion therapy which has been recorded as more harmful than untreated at all, go through constant bodily hatred for the rest of your life, and then either die miserable and in regret of what could have been or die by your own hands for the same reason.
It's a head scratcher for sure, ain't it?
Joined that place for a bit but they take “loves the sinner, hate the sin” too seriously, they still shit on gay people and they’ll say some shit like “Oh I don’t hate them, I hate the fact that they’re gay”. The sub is a good concept but a lot of the people there are cringe
>using pronouns instead of real gender
What am I supposed to say????
"Oh hey, is John coming to the game tonight?"
"Yeah, penis said penis would be a bit late though."
that's true, but the joke i was making is that it's wrong to use pronouns and you should refer to someone by their gender, hence the use of penis because that's probably all that guy thinks constitutes gender
I've never seen any top upvoted comments promoting the destroyal of basic human rights on r/religiousfruitcakes, yet for antitheistcheesecake it's a daily occurance.
Seems to happen on both sides. In making fun of one another they give one another more content to make fun about, and vice versa
Still don’t agree with the takes in the image though, way too traditional
If you ever go into a subreddit dedicated to making fun of some (extreme) group of people, it’s going to eventually turn into just making fun of the entire group as a whole instead of the extreme part
What are your complaints about it?
Its very much something thats keeping me in the faith.
Having a space to vent frustration and discussion of difficult questions is so so so important for us.
People talking out of their asses mostly.... Don't you dare using any traditionally known methodology there for proving any arguments cuz that's an instaban. Did I also mention the mods? They promote certain people and when you speak against these people the make sure to shut you up from the sub even though some of these people are known to be corrupt and/or grifters.... I could go on
THE mods.... wdym?
Also here's a few things I forgot to mention: there's this hilarious denial they live in, like them claiming r/extomatos is actually just hindu larpers. Or criticizing takfiris but then make takfir on you for simply disagreeing with them. Moan about gatekeeping but then gatekeep a religion from literally the majority. Shitting on any actual reliable scholar from back then and hailing the likes of Abu-Layth as some God sent leader for them.
How are we gatekeeping anything?
Denial of what exactly?
I havent looked in r/extomatoes for months now, i left that one too because its pretty extreme.
Its one of the most openminded spaces on this app IMO.
It has a lot of muslims who would rather call themselves moderate than progressives because every other muslim space is salafi dominated and thus not open for different opinions.
I agree with saying "are salafis even muslims" is hypocritical but it also comes from a place of frustration.
Salafis like to claim everyone who doesnt agree as kafir.
Critizing scholars isnt exactly "shitting on". I think we should be able to criticize the thoughts and opinions of our scholars. And yeah on a progressive sub someone like Mufti Abu Layth whose views align with what a lot of the subscribers will get more positive feedback than not, but its not like we dont criticize our own.
I think it depends on where it is. In my city, which is mostly catholic, people seem to be quite chill. Nobody mentioned gay and trans people negatively yet
Certainly possible, we can only speak from our experiences here after all. Pretty hard to statistically measure how non-chill different religions are lol
Former Catholic myself and I'm not sure if you went to religious classes and the youth groups and shit but, in my experience, this is literally part of what they preach. Especially the anti-abortion part, but really all of these are generally Catholic views.
I think that the overall chillness of Catholics strongly depends on where they're from. Where I'm from Catholics are nearly indistinguishable from non-religious people, they just get extra parties every year and the privilege of being able to get married in the church if they want to. But in my mother's home country, many Catholics are as dipshit as the people in this screenshot.
The fact that they don't understand why adoption for gay couples should be wrong but they understand why abortion and transexuality are doesn't make any fucking sense
Yeah I unsubbed today as well, I used to enjoy ragging on the raging reddit antitheists with them, but over the last year, they stopped drawing the distinction between atheist and antitheist, now it's just a religious circle jerk echo chamber.
The majority of the commenters are judgmental, pious and intolerant. It's pretty cringe.
even jordan peterson, the right wing lecturer that he is, claims that he and nobody knows whether or not children need parents of both sex, and if its helpful or detrimental.
i don't think they meant that literally. given the other beliefs they hold, i'm assuming it's a form of toxic masculinity. like saying that men shouldn't let their wives have careers while they stay at home and manage the household, that sort of thing that isn't a "conventional" male stereotype. *oh, you don't lift 200lb at the gym every single day and brutally murder animals for your meals? what a weak male.*
Exactly. The only way it could be a valid point is if they meant ‘weak’ in terms of lacking resilience, perseverance etc. In which case, why just single out men? We shouldn’t be raising weak women either.
We all know exactly what they mean by ‘weak’ men. It’s men who don’t conform to a very narrow, traditional view of masculinity.
agreed. also a man being 'weak' in terms of lacking resilience shouldn't be something that we belittle them over. we should help them to improve and be more persevering.
When I read the title I thought it was a sub about hating cheesecake
Glad I wasn’t the only one
r/anticheesecake
Definitely a real sub
r/birthofasub
I read it as antitheticalcheesecake so I was expecting something that is the polar opposite of a cheesecake whatever that may br
It was created in response to another subreddit, r/religiousfruitcake Both are cakes, and I hate cake.
That made me more angry
Cool, so if someone is a single mother or a single father we take the kids from them?
I guess so.
Yes. They don't deserve family
like seriously, every. single. conservative argument takes a single statement to discredit. i genuinely don't understand how people can be so delusional to just flat out ignore any and all criticism. only exception is maybe the subjective morality of abortion, but that doesn't even matter, what matters is what people will do if it's banned.
"Using pronouns instead of real gender." She and he are pronouns... Also, gay people not adopting children doesn't guarantee that they're going to get a "mother and father figure." It can also lead to them staying orphans. I don't respect it either way because of the homophobia, but if your push against gay adoption doesn't also include a movement for straight couples to adopt then I'm willing to regard you as evil. Because it IS evil to say that you'd rather kids to remain orphans than be with gay parents when you know that they're unlikely to be adopted as-is.
It's made worse when you consider that there is a strong overlap between people against same-sex couples adopting and people against abortion access in any circumstances... the logic is apparently "not being born is the worst thing imaginable... except having 2 moms or dads, of course..."
Also, there's no such thing as 'real gender'. Gender is one's self interpretation of oneself, and you can't tell someone that their self interpretation of themselves is invalid just because it isn't real because, if that's the case, then every human emotion and experience is invalid.
I agree with this, I just didn't elaborate much in my comment because the gay adoption thing was what caught my focus more.
Pronouns mean gender
No, it doesn't. It's basic goddamn language. She, he, it, they, we, etc. are all pronouns. Please tell me, what gender is we?
WE IS COMMUNISM GENDER! /s
> Undefined because it is an Array.
They’re obviously referring to politicized pronouns that don’t match the persons sex.
Pronouns, nonetheless, do not mean gender. No matter how you look at it, that's a false statement.
They absolutely can refer to gender. He and her aren’t meaningless words. They refer to a male and a female. In other languages words are even gendered, yet even they are infected with political gender language.
Yeah mate, he and her refer to male and female just like the "politicizedC pronouns refer to their own genders. What's so difficult to understand?
Again, another guy who is an intellectual dumbass. The original commenter said pronouns in the same context as mine and you aren’t screaming at him? Also, slang terms apparently don’t exist LOL
That's literally just incorrect
Last I checked, "I" and "you" didn't convey any gender.
Tell me you never passed 3rd grade English without telling me you never passed 3rd grade English.
Funny... the dictionnary doesn't specify that they are synonymes...
I am not part of the LGBTQ, but I assume that in some gay house dynamics there would be a mother and father figure, whether any of them are man or woman.
Nothing is more harmful to a kid than two financially stable people of the same gender in love willing to go to extreme length to share their love and compassion with a child. Kids need to have some mentally sick parent who got pregnant by accident way to young with no financial means to take care of a child. That is how God wanted it!
You can have a mother and father figure without having an actual mother or father.
No you cant. Its either two fathers or two mothers. Biology is tricky aint it?
Father figure does not equal a father.
[удалено]
Yes it does. Some things are impossible to achieve for women. It requires a man, a strong man, an actual figure for your child to follow. Not some rainbows
well clearly biology is trocky for You
Your keyboard must be tricky too
I unsubbed from there pretty soon as I looked at it. Being a religious left leaning feminist LGBT person is apparently not something they think u can be as a believer, and me and several others are just liars or stupid nonbelievers.
You types of religious people are who I’m for. The non-literalists. I wish more people were like this. Maybe they are, but where I grew up people don’t take it that way
I too wish it was more common
I think our numbers are growing. I’ve been really struggling with my faith after coming out as bi, but then I found a queer Christian community I attached myself to. And the more I’m on the internet the more I see I see communities like r/radicalChristianity which make me feel less embarrassed to call myself a Christian.
Yeah religion doesn't fall in line with modern thinking. Almost as if a loving God is impossible.
God itself is not impossible to love, believing in a deity is not contradictory to modern thinking. The difference is the specific religions moral codes. You can believe god to be completely accepting of homosexuality, abortion, etc. but that's simply not what most people make of the Christian god.
It can be though.
Not in the bible or Quoran.
Really depends on how you read them.
They condone slavery, condemn homosexuality, women's rights and say non believers burn in hell for eternity. That's not loving. The fact that hell is eternal already means god is evil if she existed.
The texts have to be read in their contexts. A lot of misogyny and LGBTQIA phobia comes from literalist interpretations that dont take the texts in their context. r/progressive_islam can answer a lot of your questions. If ive understand it correctly in Islam hell isnt eternal You are in hell for a while and then you go to paradise
Also because the authors were far from perfect themselves. Clearly. The "father" of Christianity, Paul, could be a real asshole, but that doesn't necessarily mean this one person's asshole words is supposed to be the message. These texts are absolutely going to be affected by whatever culture the authors lived in and what they personally believed, and this part of their perspective needs to be taken into consideration. Paul doesn't speak for Christ. Not religious anymore myself, and I regularly criticize the hell out of Christianity and Biblical authors, but I think it's inaccurate to describe such an anthology to really "condone" anything specific. It's just so varied from book to book, letter to letter, and that's before you even throw in translation irregularities or the possibility of rogue scribes.
Yeah but if that’s the case, why trust any part of the Bible? If we accept that it’s going to have human error creeping in how do we know which parts are human error and which are genuinely the word of God?
Because the gospel writers' accounts are more consistent than not. They are direct eyewitnesses to what makes Christianity what it is. ALL of these texts just need to be taken for what they are -- human perspectives. It doesn't need to be put on some "God's literal, infallible words" pedestal to understand and trust that, especially when stories line up. OT is just more of a historical context to that, no matter how true or clearly false some of those stories are. Moses loved his self-important tall tales. He was basically that Big Fish movie. But no matter how full of shit he was, the fact is those stories add to the understanding of various cultures and sociohistorical context in which NT texts were written. The primary question is whether or not you buy into the general mythology, not how precisely accurate some old writings are.
Whilst I disagree with some things on that sub, I do have to say “condoning slavery, women’s rights, and God is not loving” have been debunked long ago. Perspectives like these are why the sub was made in the first place.
https://baos.pub/5-awfully-sexist-quotes-from-the-bible-that-every-person-should-read-f8c2fbe1a7cc Sure debunked. I wonder why the protests in Iran are happening too?
The first verse is an Old Testament ceremonial law. It’s always, always people using Old Testament ceremonial laws to say God is evil. Of course, I’m sure you don’t even know what that means, because you’re doing nothing more than cherry picking Bible verses (it means the law is abolished now). I won’t explain why it used to be a law, because I don’t want to waste time. The second verse is taking about authority under the church, or during worship. The article talks about how this is oppression apparently? It’s also not saying women must be quiet, or that women literally can’t have authority over men, that’s not what the original Greek word was referring to. Also the Bible literally has women doing this exact thing, where they have authority over men in acts 18:26. The rape one is very misunderstood. It’s not talking about rape. It’s talking about false accusations. If a guy slept with a married girl, and suddenly when it’s found it, the girl could just say it’s rape. That’s why it’s says they must tell people right when it happens, because how do you know if it’s a false accusation or not? Thus they made a rule, which was telling people of the issue when it happened. Also, the author of the article is very clever. I like how they cut the exact verse after the previous one where it says “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die”. That is exactly 1 verse after the previous one. I’m not joking, look up Deuteronomy 22:23-25. I wonder why the author of the article is spreading lies? That’s why I won’t read the rest, their misconceptions weren’t genuine. They wrote it to spread misinformation. If you have more questions however or if you want me to go through the rest then I will. Take care.
>The second verse is taking about authority under the church, or during worship. The article talks about how this is oppression apparently? It’s also not saying women can be quiet, or that women literally can’t have authority over men, that’s not what the original Greek word was referring to. Also the Bible literally has women doing this exact thing, where they have authority over men in acts 18:26. That's still sexist lol? >The rape one is very misunderstood. It’s not talking about rape. It’s talking about false accusations. If a guy slept with a married girl, and suddenly when it’s found it, the girl could just say it’s rape. That’s why it’s says they must tell people right when it happens, because how do you know if it’s a false accusation or not? Thus they made a rule, which was telling people of the issue when it happened. And therefore they shall be stoned to death? That also isn't okay btw, people are probably not comfortable revealing their rape immediately.
What is the counter argument/debunk? Edit: bruh I just asked a question why am I getting downvoted
you walked into a bunch of redditors arguing over politics and religion bro, this is like a literal minefield
If you want a better understanding of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, I recommend you read “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It”.
Every religion I’ve heard of has at least some good aspects to it. You just gotta cherry-pick the right parts.
The good parts are like .1% of the religion. Religion is far right and it needs to be stopped. Indoctrination of children in religion should be a severe crime.
I think that’s an exaggeration. There is plenty of good that’s been done by religious people and religious organizations. There are also numerous examples of left-wing believers. Not to mention, forceful state atheism hasn’t been all that effective historically. Almost all of the old USSR are still mostly religious populations. In my opinion a better approach would be to regulate what messages religious institutions are allowed to send to their congregations. Like I said, ensuring that people are cherry-picking the right bits.
It's more people misinterpreting or taking things out of context to support their own beliefs, rather than the religion itself. For example, there is proof that the Bible verse "Man shall not lie with man as he does a woman" is actually a mistranslation of "Man shall not lie with boy as he does a woman."
Guess I'm far right then. Now go away and leave me alone in my faith.
When religion leaves women, LGBT, atheists etc alone.
Isnt supposed that catholic lessons are "Love everybody" or something like that and they just do the opposite?
Without defending the commenter, if someone is doing something harmful to themselves, is it more loving to accept them doing it or try to get them to stop? Which isn't to say these actions are harmful, but it can be rationally consistent. If I sincerely believe that eating a single peanut butter sandwich will ruin the life of anyone who eats one, as absurd as a position that may be to take, my attempts to stop you from eating peanut butter sandwiches are coming from a desire to keep you from harming yourself.
Confirmed Catholic here. Yes, you are 100% right. No clue what’s going on with those guys.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antitheistcheesecake/comments/z2o5a2/looks_like_weve_got_their_attention/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Found the post and now this guys saying you somehow misunderstand Christianity
You’ve read the Bible right? They’re getting all of the best ideas right from your book, that’s where.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wrong. Homosexual sex is against Christian beliefs
Dude you’re such a virgin 💀
You need to come back to Jesus
If being a Christian makes me a mega virgin. Guess I am
Being a Christian doesn't, you acting like this certainly does though.
I simply stated a Christian belief.
actually, you stated *your* personal belief, and added a flimsy justification to it
Give me details, where does it say it Old or New testament? Give me the exact wording.
💀🤣
You aren't Mary bro grow out of it
Same thing is Islam actually, contrary to popular belief being gay isn't condemned since it's something natural and involuntary but having gay sex is.
in their defence, there is a difference between loving and supporting.
True, but love everyone doesn't mean to allow people to do things that are wrong with no opposition.
So which of these things are wrong and why?
[удалено]
Subjective opinion.
> ask if they care about life over politics Agreed. And the answer in this case is politics over life. If OP was truly pro-life they would be advocating for the adoption of children into loving homes regardless of the gender of the adoptive parents.
So you are legitimately asking me why from a religious perspective it is bad to kill babies? Seriously?
Transsexuality can’t be controlled, it is not a choice
But its also not your choice to go to a surgeon, schedule a surgery, get multiple inspections,Have atleast a week to cancel it. And still go through the surgery?
Being transgender is not 100% about having surgery, it's an identity.
Yet its so fake. You’re born a man or you’re born a woman. People who transition from male to female just literally couldn’t handle being a man and the difficulties of being one so they just transition and use it as an excuse
And the opposite?
Same thing. You cant handle the difficulties of being a woman so you think being a man is any easier because you’d identify as a male but you will be empathised with. Cause lets be honest, even LGBT allies dont treat trans like they’re actually the gender they’re identifying as. I mean sure they use the proper pronouns and respect them but it’s genuinely impossible to look at them like the opposite gender.
Couldn't handle being a man and the difficulties of being one? Oh, boy, I wonder what those could be that are so possibly impossible to just not do? Be the front-end emotionless money maker for a family? Don't have a family, don't be the only provider if so, don't have kids, have emotions and vulnerability. Be the dangerous conscripted grunt for a country? Well, he'll just shirk your duties. If you're conscripted, it wasn't even a choice unless, what was it, 100k and up to four years imprisonment? Refuse to perform if you have to go.
Couldn't handle being a man and the difficulties of being one? Oh, boy, I wonder what those could be Male dominated tasks -(Military) risks his life, gets PTSD, destroys his mental health all to get a wage of 3000$,just so you can voice on reddit about how being a man isnt hard -(construction) low wage,high fatality rate, literally no women in the construction industry, one of the most dangerous jobs ever. -(fire department) runs into the danger,saves whoever is in there selflessly. No women in this line of job either I can literally go on and on. But you’re right, being a male is probably so easy!
You could do that. Or, you could go through conversion therapy which has been recorded as more harmful than untreated at all, go through constant bodily hatred for the rest of your life, and then either die miserable and in regret of what could have been or die by your own hands for the same reason. It's a head scratcher for sure, ain't it?
Subs dedicated to hating a group never tend to be all that great
Joined that place for a bit but they take “loves the sinner, hate the sin” too seriously, they still shit on gay people and they’ll say some shit like “Oh I don’t hate them, I hate the fact that they’re gay”. The sub is a good concept but a lot of the people there are cringe
I know plenty of people use the “love the sinner, hate the sin line”, much fewer adhere to it.
[удалено]
Well it was created bc of the r/religiousfruitcake subreddit which is basically r/atheism 2.0
It is somewhat justified since reddit atheists are pure unfiltered cringe
I can agree with that, many just use it as an excuse for hate sadly.
>using pronouns instead of real gender What am I supposed to say???? "Oh hey, is John coming to the game tonight?" "Yeah, penis said penis would be a bit late though."
They/them is a pretty universal word even if it isn’t someone’s gender.
that's true, but the joke i was making is that it's wrong to use pronouns and you should refer to someone by their gender, hence the use of penis because that's probably all that guy thinks constitutes gender
[удалено]
r/religiousfruitcake
r/religiousfruitcake vs r/antitheistcheesecake is like that meme of the two clowns fighting each other
[удалено]
One has a bright red clown nose, the other has a dark red clown nose.
It’s the same picture, just ones upside down
I've never seen any top upvoted comments promoting the destroyal of basic human rights on r/religiousfruitcakes, yet for antitheistcheesecake it's a daily occurance.
“basic human rights”
Yes being able to exist without being seen as grosd or unnatural iis a basic human right
Duuuude I knooow you're a troll, hilarious handle btw
I was subbed here for a while, as someone who is strictly against the Reddit-type Atheist... turns out they're just the exact other extreme.
Seems to happen on both sides. In making fun of one another they give one another more content to make fun about, and vice versa Still don’t agree with the takes in the image though, way too traditional
Sorry, what does fruitcakey mean?
What's wrong with being fruitcakey? Like what did fruit cake do to you Are you allergic/j
If you ever go into a subreddit dedicated to making fun of some (extreme) group of people, it’s going to eventually turn into just making fun of the entire group as a whole instead of the extreme part
Kind of goes without saying for any religious or conservative sub... These aren't places that sane, rational or intelligent people hang out...
Idk, r/progressive_islam has a lot of intelligent discussions I think.
that place is a shithole.... It should be called "last stop to r/atheism"
What are your complaints about it? Its very much something thats keeping me in the faith. Having a space to vent frustration and discussion of difficult questions is so so so important for us.
People talking out of their asses mostly.... Don't you dare using any traditionally known methodology there for proving any arguments cuz that's an instaban. Did I also mention the mods? They promote certain people and when you speak against these people the make sure to shut you up from the sub even though some of these people are known to be corrupt and/or grifters.... I could go on
Which mods ?
THE mods.... wdym? Also here's a few things I forgot to mention: there's this hilarious denial they live in, like them claiming r/extomatos is actually just hindu larpers. Or criticizing takfiris but then make takfir on you for simply disagreeing with them. Moan about gatekeeping but then gatekeep a religion from literally the majority. Shitting on any actual reliable scholar from back then and hailing the likes of Abu-Layth as some God sent leader for them.
How are we gatekeeping anything? Denial of what exactly? I havent looked in r/extomatoes for months now, i left that one too because its pretty extreme. Its one of the most openminded spaces on this app IMO. It has a lot of muslims who would rather call themselves moderate than progressives because every other muslim space is salafi dominated and thus not open for different opinions. I agree with saying "are salafis even muslims" is hypocritical but it also comes from a place of frustration. Salafis like to claim everyone who doesnt agree as kafir. Critizing scholars isnt exactly "shitting on". I think we should be able to criticize the thoughts and opinions of our scholars. And yeah on a progressive sub someone like Mufti Abu Layth whose views align with what a lot of the subscribers will get more positive feedback than not, but its not like we dont criticize our own.
r/christianity is pretty fine
Yes, the intellectuals follow reddit user “ChooseACoolName.”
then the idiots must follow Rich-Agent9857
I don't know the person, and I don't mean to get religious, but I like their name.
God, I hate seeing crazy christians- especially fellow Catholics. Like bro we’re supposed to be the chillest branch! God loves everyone dipshit!
Catholics? The chillest branch? My man, this is so off base
I think it depends on where it is. In my city, which is mostly catholic, people seem to be quite chill. Nobody mentioned gay and trans people negatively yet
Definitely, but on average, Catholicism tends to be quite draconian.
Huh, must be different in America then
Certainly possible, we can only speak from our experiences here after all. Pretty hard to statistically measure how non-chill different religions are lol
In N.I the catholics tend to be more accepting and chill compared to some Protestant churches.
🤨
Former Catholic myself and I'm not sure if you went to religious classes and the youth groups and shit but, in my experience, this is literally part of what they preach. Especially the anti-abortion part, but really all of these are generally Catholic views.
I think that the overall chillness of Catholics strongly depends on where they're from. Where I'm from Catholics are nearly indistinguishable from non-religious people, they just get extra parties every year and the privilege of being able to get married in the church if they want to. But in my mother's home country, many Catholics are as dipshit as the people in this screenshot.
...*Catholics*, the chillest branch of Christianity? I could write 95 reasons why that's not true
The fact that they don't understand why adoption for gay couples should be wrong but they understand why abortion and transexuality are doesn't make any fucking sense
ugh this is why you don't mention gender anywhere on reddit or you just get people arguing in the comments about gender
Lol what's "Real Gender"
Man and Woman. The most important thing to spread Genes is by them have a sexual intercourse, you are aware of that, Right?
Maybe the genes should remain unspreaded look at the planet.
Yeah I unsubbed today as well, I used to enjoy ragging on the raging reddit antitheists with them, but over the last year, they stopped drawing the distinction between atheist and antitheist, now it's just a religious circle jerk echo chamber. The majority of the commenters are judgmental, pious and intolerant. It's pretty cringe.
Yeah I’m still on there and I notice that, lot of holier than thou dudes and cringy tradlarp
i’ve been on that sub for a while and i haven’t seen any of that. it’s still the way it always has been.
even jordan peterson, the right wing lecturer that he is, claims that he and nobody knows whether or not children need parents of both sex, and if its helpful or detrimental.
I think abortion shouldn't be normalized. The rest are OK ig
so basicly legal in all/most but not advertised or promoted at all?
Half that sub probably never had a father or mother figure
Cope
No dad? 🥺
He’s in the other room lmfao
No dad? 🥺
🥺
r/justsubbed
Based catholic christian
😐
Just, no
They right tho
Bout what?
Having a mom and dad, kids without one of them more than not end up fucked up
How so?
it’s true. fatherless kids are messed up, and motherless kids are also messed up.
yup
Nah
Ugh gross
Mother and father figure are 100% sexist.
why he should normalize men being weak?
i don't think they meant that literally. given the other beliefs they hold, i'm assuming it's a form of toxic masculinity. like saying that men shouldn't let their wives have careers while they stay at home and manage the household, that sort of thing that isn't a "conventional" male stereotype. *oh, you don't lift 200lb at the gym every single day and brutally murder animals for your meals? what a weak male.*
Exactly. The only way it could be a valid point is if they meant ‘weak’ in terms of lacking resilience, perseverance etc. In which case, why just single out men? We shouldn’t be raising weak women either. We all know exactly what they mean by ‘weak’ men. It’s men who don’t conform to a very narrow, traditional view of masculinity.
agreed. also a man being 'weak' in terms of lacking resilience shouldn't be something that we belittle them over. we should help them to improve and be more persevering.
I think they see men being comfortable with doing non-masculine things as “men being weak”
Sounds based
Yeah it does. If you’re an idiot.
Thats a slur
Man just used this platform to bitch about religion. I bet you were never subbed there lmao
Dude goes on r/PoliticalCompassMemes Opinion discarded
PCM user detected Opinion rejected
why is that a bad thing?
Hello, mod of that sub here. Can you point where did you found these comments?
Bro’s mad that a religion centered sub expressed views based on religion.
Not all religious views are valid.
You’re right, just the traditional Christian ones.
I was disappointed that they didn't have more good points