Zero tolerance policy in the U.S. started in 2002, but I think it was Pope Francis who implemented the church-wide mandatory reporting system, so that wouldn't have happened until more recently. Google says it was 2019. But this all only happened after a public backlash, which is why I say "too late". Prior to that churches just discreetly moved the pedophiles to a different diocese.
Yeah you keep saying this and it's still a bullshit comparison. This is supporting a rapist vs supporting a global church that had a minority of rapists serving in it. This is "the rot is at the core" vs "the rot is at the extremities." This is "MAGA is a cult of personality built around Trump, who is a rapist" vs "the Catholic Church is a cult of personality built around Jesus, who was not a rapist."
Add to this that the priests in question have been defrocked by the Church, and the Church has at least put new policies in place for reporting sexual assault by clergy as well as a new zero-tolerance policy where any credible accusation now results in defrocking. They did it much too late, and damnably their first impulse was to cover it up, but at least they did it. Meanwhile there has been zero movement within MAGA to recognize, denounce, or prevent Trump's sexual trespasses.
Also lol wtf is up with "hate neither" as if hating both is not also a consistent option. Lots of liberals pick that one.
The idea that Jesus is God is a post-biblical innovation, so you're not going to find it in the Gospels.
What kind of VC's are you in bro
You can call him whatever you want, just seems like your rhetoric is aimed at elevating yourself above your fellow Christians and showing that you practice better devotional etiquette.
Who am I signalling to exactly?
God himself would know if I am faking it and punish me for faking it.
I don't think it is virtue signalling. I use the wrong name in general conversation with the brainwashed of today.
In private I do my absolute best and also quietly at Mass, to call him by the true name Mary and Father gave us to call him.
It was a textbook credibility enhancing display, which are aimed at whatever community we want to enhance our credibility to.
Everyone does credibility enhancing displays. I wouldn't call it something worthy of punishment. But using an Anglicized version of a name doesn't make anyone brainwashed or less pious than you. You read an Anglicized version of the Bible. You pray to an Anglicized portrait of Jesus.
Getting mad about how Jesus's name is pronounced is just silly virtue signaling. Different languages have different sounds and characters, and so names are transliterated differently by necessity. You wouldn't get angry that Spanish speakers say Santa Maria instead of Holy Mary. Same thing.
In what world does Yeshua become Yeezoos even with accents factored in?
His name was Yeshu' with a glottal stop at the end. Yehoshua was the Hebrew version, which was contracted into Yeshua in Aramaic. But apparently Galilean Aramaic speakers would not have pronounced the vowel at the end, so, Yeshu'.
Greek had no glottal stops, so when they translated Yeshu' they just put an S on the end like they did with many Greek names, and it went from Yeshu' to Iesous. They had no "sh" sound in the Greek either, so it lost the "sh" in the middle and gained a hard S.
Then the J was invented during the Renaissance and you get Jesus. This is all just normal transliteration and language development stuff. No conspiracy to degrade Christ's name.
Its like calling a Daniel 'David'.
Those are completely different Hebrew names that mean different things -- "God is my judge" and "beloved", respectively. But Yeshua means "salvation", and Iesous means "salvation", and Jesus means "salvation".
Wink's interpretations continue to be really popular even though no one knows who he is or that it's his historical claims they're quoting. And I think his takes are so appealing to so many people because they reframe Jesus's pacifism as some kind of resistance. We just can't bring ourselves to accept the plain reading of the text -- don't resist an evildoer.
Wink in particular hated that Jesus's teachings were sometimes used to keep the oppressed down or to preserve the status quo when the status quo was inherently unjust. He didn't want Christians to be uninvolved in social injustice or to spout platitudes in the face of such. "Blanket denunciations of violence by the churches place the counter-violence of the oppressed on the same level as the violence of the system that has driven the oppressed to such desperation."
In short, this man had every reason to read Jesus's words with an agenda -- and it was a good agenda -- but I do think it compromised his scholarly objectivity. The likelier case is that Jesus was an apocalyptic who thought there was not enough time for broad social change because the kingdom of heaven was soon to come.
If you go to Amazon and read a sample of Wink's book Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way it should give you an idea of his theology.
That interpretation comes from a chap named Walter Wink, who came out with a series of books that aimed to reframe Jesus's pacifism as a kind of radical defiance to power. Wink was progressive and wanted us to see Jesus more like a nonviolent resistance leader than a straight pacifist.
I think one of his other assertions was that "go the extra mile" referred to a Roman law where Roman soldiers could only ask you to carry their gear for one mile, but you should carry it for another mile as well, which could get them in trouble. Or that witnessing nakedness was actually something that incurred shame on the viewer in the ancient world, not the naked person, so "giving someone the shirt off your back" if you were in court was shaming the person suing you.
The problem was that there is no such Roman law about going the extra mile, and most scholars disagree that there is enough data to support Wink's other assertions about which hands meant what for slapping and who would really be the embarrassed party if you gave someone the shirt off your back, at least to the degree that it should inform our interpretation of Jesus's words.
Big relief, thanks Satan
What exactly doesnt make sense? I have a maximally great brain, so of course I can have multiple persons inside it. I know other people are limited to 1 person per brain, but that isnt an issue I have. My brain can have a lot of persons. this isnt anything complicated.
What doesn't make sense is that Christianity traditionally believes in one soul per brain, so there is not a world where part of you can go to heaven and part to hell.
I mean that makes no sense to me but it sounds like it would to a Trinitarian
Yeah, and one part of me has no other Gods except Yahweh, so one part of me is a true follower of Yahweh God or Godhead.
I don't think Yahweh buys soul stock. He wants the whole thing.
I confess I don't really get how these disparate religions of yours are compatible. Yahweh explicitly says his followers can have no other gods.
If you die on one of the not-Christian days what happens
No, that is a different Anu, which I also worship.
I reeeaaally had you pegged for a Daedra worshiper. They're all tit for tat, what goodies has Anu ever given anyone.
If Christianity is such a big movement, maybe people should look into it to see if it’s true. It’s a big deal and a concept that has impacted the entire world for a very long time.
Would you tell me why you disbelieve Christianity or would you like me to tell you why I believe in it?
Feel free.
I had no job. I couldnt work for 10 hours due to back pain, and all jobs available demanded that long work time. I was depressed. I had no life plan. I was muslim, then atheist, then muslim again, then Christian. Nothing seemed to improve anything in my life. So then I started praying to Satan. I thought it wont do anything for me. And for first few times, it didnt do much. So then I suddenly started getting these ideas, ideas I didnt have before. Idea to start a chicken buisness and generate consistent flow of income was definitely something I never thought of before. I thought it would fail, but Satan and polytheist religions made it work. they gave me knowledge and confidence so I learned about investments, I learned about trade, I learned about cost vs income in buisnesses and advertising, I learned about reducing personal expenses to minimum even tho I never went to economics school, I combined chicken buisness with gold investments, making savings and reducing expenses so any future hole in income can be covered for quite some time. I also learned land gains value over time and can be sold gradually to maximize income if ever needed. So in a way, I have more free time and I still have guaranteed money.
My depression likewise went away. It just went away. Like it was never there. I gained this surprising will to learn and will to advance. I gained this confidence I never had before. And I remained with Satan ever since, only expanded my belief to many other ancient Gods and new modern Gods.
It is true that belief changes your internal thinking, and also affects your external actions then.
Glad you found something that works for you. Henotheistic Satanism, if I'm assessing that correctly, is a pretty unique choice though. What is it about Satan that clicked over other deities?
I grew up in a family of believers, but we weren’t heavily religious, we didn’t regularly go to church. What changed my mind was actually debate.org. Although I was a believer, I didn’t really participate in religious debates. It was just a thing I believed but never really questioned why.
Then I came across a debate that blew the hole wide open. The debater made the argument that if any person deserved to go to hell, it would have to be God himself, because he is ultimately responsible for the suffering caused in hell.
This debate made me realize that I knew deep down inside religious ideas were silly, but what kept me from questioning them (which is why I avoided the religious forum) was the fear religion installed in me to never question God. Once I realized what it was that was keeping me from applying the same critical thinking towards religion as I did towards everything else in life, that disappeared.
And here I'd always said that online debate was primarily recreational and never really changed anyone's minds. I guess you never really can tell. Maybe it doesn't change minds so much as catalyze a reaction or realization that was already subconsciously baking.
But that is such dishonor. I wont beg like a dumb puppy for anything.
Then don't. Why u mad
Could you please fuck off with the AI copypasta
He thinks old people become vampires to live longer.
I feel like licking people may not be the most efficient way of drinking their blood
Why are you sitting around imagining old people licking you would be my first question
Luce both men and women often make fools of themselves in pursuit of the object of their infatuation. It's pretty universal. There's no change happening in that regard, it's always been that way.
I think as women shake off their submissive roles it makes men fear they will lose their dominance and in turn be made to be the submissives. But that's not the goal; the goal is to break free of the dominant/submissive dynamic altogether. To have relationships about mutual respect and equal footing.
If someone is making you feel like you have to lower yourself to get access to attention or affection, then you need to move on to someone who will value you. Whether you're male or female, straight or gay, whatever, you need to move on. It's your responsibility to find someone who's not an asshole, and honestly, it's harder than it sounds. Both men and women have a tendency to overvalue partners who do not necessarily value them or have healthy relationship habits.
Your beef about men shaving their bodies, having long hair, using cologne, etc -- this is just the dominant/submissive dynamic all over again. You don't want someone who belongs to the traditionally dominant sex to take on submissive characteristics. You think they're lowering themselves. This is a latent sexism we kind of all inherit. But again, the better path is just to break free of this dominant/submissive thinking altogether. What's so bad about a man taking on a few traditionally feminine behaviors? Are women so bad that it's abominable to imitate them? If you think he's lowering himself to do so, doesn't that mean you think women are inferior? Why is it so goddamn important for men to project dominance all the time? We're no longer in a nomadic tribal society, there's no barbarian horde about to descend on us the moment they sense weakness. We've outgrown this shit and it's time to break free of these restrictions on how we're allowed to express ourselves.
I think one of the culture-shift milestones occurred in 1972 when Helen Reddy, a woman, released her song, "I am Woman," with the lyric, "I am woman, hear me roar." Set back the feminine archetype by 50 years. And this year, we are introduced to men's face cream via "Particle," which has sufficiently masculine pkg, but the whole TV ad is skin texture; a definitive female hotspot. It's funny, because I think most of the "before" photos look better for men than the "after."
Mom loved this song as a girl.
Money is tight with my family's health issues and I just can't afford extra hobbies right now, sadly.
To the person below me:
If you had a superpower what would it be?
I'm interested in hearing about everyone's personal journey to their current religion, spirituality, agnosticism, or atheism. What led you to your faith? Or what led you away from faith?
Second of all, women picking the bear does not mean men are worse than bears, it means those women fear strange men more than they fear strange bears.
Exactly, it's anti male sexism. Replace, "strange men" with, "blacks" and see how it works. All bears are strange.
Terms like sexism and racism were coined to describe top-down prejudice. While they can be used to describe bottom-up prejudice, such prejudice is toothless most of the time and never carries the same weight; punching up will never be as much of a threat as punching down.
The closer we get to social equality, the more that will change; sexism will more and more be something that can go either way and racism could one day be the same.
Lol I mean Mary Shelley was 18 when she wrote Frankenstein...
