deleted by creator
Cults are small. Christianity is big. And it was Christians who, during the satanic panic, created a false association in pop culture between cults and abuse. See, back in the 60s, the hippie movement was turning young people away from Christianity and towards new age spiritualities like wicca and thelema. The christians had to put a stop to these cults, so they created a myth that cult=abuse.
deleted by creator
If cults can be big, then there’s absolutely no difference between a religion and a cult. Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity). Christianity is clearly neither. I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity. Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic. The fact that Christianity is not a cult, and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important. We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.
there is absolutely no difference between a religion and a cult
OMG, you’re starting to get it!
deleted by creator
Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity)
Sure, but that’s a fairly narrow definition that ignores a large proportion of the actual dictionary definitions.
I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity
A somewhat subjective take that doesn’t really explain how the term cult would imply “unjust apology”
Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic
Not true, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
edit: the term cults can include groups “targeted by the Satanic panic” but that isn’t a strict definitional requirement.
The fact that Christianity is not a cult
Christianity does in fact meet many of the dictionary definitions of the word “cult”.
You could argue that the normalisation of christianity excludes it from adhering to the definitions that mention “unorthodox” or “small” but those definitions are relatively few.
and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important.
How so ?
Other than power and money i mean.
We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.
I can’t find any reference to the word “cult” that, when applied to christianity. would absolve them of the egregious historical shitfuckery perpetrated by and for them.
One of the most frustrating things of dealing with bible people is when the request for proof comes up. They just point at the Bible. Like it’s some text that has deep references to verifiable and cross referenced historical fact. Like Pontious Pilate’s administration leaving records of some guy doing magic on the regular, him getting in fights with rich people, or even just a criminal docket of hanging a magical guy.
Nope. They just point at their book as proof of itself.
what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
And when they still point to that bible of theirs, start quoting your favorite incest story.
Removed by mod
That’s not very Satanic, friendo.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
Shut the fuck up
The paradox of tolerance at its finest.
Aw, you kiss your mother with that tongue, sweetums?
Removed by mod
The Temple of Satan =/= Church of Satan, but thanks for trying.
It’s a good idea to double check what one’s reading before replying, in the future. 🤗🤪
Removed by mod
Can’t tell if Atheist or American Christian
So is new atheism back?
Schizophrenic, Bronze Age, fan fiction has a lot to answer for.
Amen!
No.
Ramen!
She forgot to address them as “you bitches”.
I don’t think commenting under a clickbait picture is the best way to have a serious discussion
You can’t have a serious discussion with a person who follows a millennia old book
You sound like someone who hasn’t read or study much
Lol spelling errors aren’t a great way to try and play smart
Oh, and that’s what the other side is pursuing - a serious discussion?
Spare us. The other side is out for blood. No discussion is detailed in Project 2025.
I’m not sure what you are talking about is this post related to US politics?
Is US politics not related to this post? I mean, in any way?
Then why did you do it?
I’m pointing it out, same people seem not to realize it.
Ironic. 🤣🖕🏽
If we swap the word “bible” for “lawbook” does your opinion change?
If we had it all active laws in one book, that would be a huge step in the right direction.
Agreed. “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse” is currently impossible to correct.
If you take the time to make this poster and walk around the streets for everybody to see,
Then you do care a lot about what’s in the Bible.
You simply don’t agree with it.
Now, we may ask: why?
The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it. She probably wants to be a promiscuous without being ashamed for it.
the fuck’s wrong with you?
she doesn’t care about the Bible but people forcing religion and their religious rules on everyone else is why she’s out there with that sign; she’s fighting for her freedom from religion and her personal rights.
Yes, right. So courageous.
As side effect, she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
I could get into more details, but I don’t feel I’m in the right community to do so.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
The nuclear family is bad, all the fuckin radiation has to be bad for you.
Any credible sources for any of those ludicrous claims?
How about you make your own research
Funny to bring up research in a discussion about religion.
So “no” then, got it
she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.
Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.
Others may find them stifling.
You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.
If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.
Purpose - control large groups of idiots whom can’t be bothered to think for themselves
Please elaborate on nuclear family then how nuclear fits into the bible as it was harnessed 1943 years after the death of your so called Messiah
Jesus is an important part of the Bible, but it’s not entirely about him.
Overall, I’d say that the Bible provides universal guidance and principles in the affairs of human life. It’s up to you to accept or reject the guidance.
You missed the 1943 part of that. 2000 years of knowledge has been gathered and put down so we can advance humanity and you idiots are still looking for answers of a 2000+ year old book
I very much doubt that nuclear was even a word when the shit was invented.
Seriously you have had too much bible it is rotted your brain
I really love having the tag feature. It’ll help me remember in the future when I’ve met someone that slut shames people to defend Christianity
Well, maybe slut shaming can be a good thing.
Just like fat shaming can also be a good thing.
What I don’t get is why you automatically assume that just because she doesn’t agree with what’s in the Bible that she’s promiscuous. Where does she mention sexuality?
Everything you ranted about was predicated on your assumption that she’s a slut and it all falls apart when you realize that your assumption
iscould be wrong.Yes, I assumed it was about sexuality.
Marriages and religions have been optional for many generations. Most of the time that I hear about religions, it’s always related to some sin.
I don’t see much what else could it be.
It has been explained repeatedly why someone might oppose the teachings of the Bible. They have nothing to do with sexuality. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Maybe it is. By curiosity, I studied the Bible for many months, maybe years, without identifying myself as a Christian.
It probably shaped many of my worldviews.
You are a total piece of shit
Sometimes, being an asshole has its advantages and can be useful. If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.
Being fat is objectively bad for your health. Sure. But being sexually active is objectively good for your health.
Shaming anyone though, rarely leads to any positive change. Probably the opposite.
Nothing in excess is ever good.
That goes for religion too, lay off that shit m8, your brain is FUCKED
If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/
“exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain.”
“The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with”
“Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance”
What you are advocating for directly leads to higher rates of obesity.
God is made up and the bible was written by dillusional human. Who are you to shame promiscuity when priests around the world fuck little boys.
You can fuck off with you high and mighty beliefs
When you die you rot in the ground that’s it
Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.
Sinners die and rot too.
Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.
Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?
You’re not actually making a point here, you’re putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.
Ideally, yes. They should.
But one of the issue of extreme morality like these is that deep down, everyone crave basic human desires. Reproduction/sexuality being one of them, and priests usually have oaths to fulfill.
And when you suppress these craving for too long, I believe they turn into weird, dark and repressed fantasies. Priests grooming children is one of them.
Suppressing them.
Your entire argument here is around discouraging sexual promiscuity (which is exclusively being advocated for specifically with consenting adults) and yet you also argue that a lack of reproduction/sex directly leads to grooming.
You can’t have both sides.
On top of that, many aspects about the church can lead to grooming that aren’t sexual repression, namely the power dynamics of religious officials, and the idea that those who are religious are more inherently “ethical” or “good” than others, and are thus less likely to do wrong.
The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it.
What does this imply about those who agree with it?
Just for the sake of an open response to this, in the case you’re not actually trolling. Do you really believe this woman does care about the contents of the bible? Or can you see the imo more logical point that she cares about certain political movements not agreeing to the seperation of church and state, leading to actual policy based on a religious book you don’t believe in or agree with?
In that case, where is the need to actually believe in the bible or it’s teachings just to put in the effort of making a sign and protesting? At that point you’re protesting the consequences of a select group of people pushing their religious dogmas on everyone under the veil of politics. Which unfortunately still seems to happen in current times imo.
Yeah, religions and the Bible aren’t taken very seriously anymore. At that point, I think it can be difficult to differ politics from actual virtue.
I agree that religious beliefa are generally on the decline, but that’s not objectively a good or bad thing.
The word virtue unfortunately has too many meanings in this context:
However virtue, if defined as moral excellence, simply does not exist in a fully objective sense. The best definition I can try to personally approximate is to “choose your own actions in such a way as to minimize negative and maximize positive effects on the people they affect”. If I use that definition to reason about the virtuousness of being sexually liberal, I cannot see it as anything other than a virtue, other than hurting others by e.g. being promiscuos within a relationship.
On a more general note, monogamy was not always the norm. Historically a lot of cultures have thrived under polygamy or similar systems. The most well-known one (assuming you’re from North America) are the Mormons, which accept and encourage polygyny.
deleted by creator
Maybe it is because there is no hard proof for it, and its adherents are using their unproven bible to tell her what to do?
Using the Bible as strict moral code actually makes you a better human being than most people are in my opinion. With that said, some parts (for example the one about homosexuality) are no longer relevant from a theolgical standpoint, so if someone tries to justify their hatred using the Bible it’s on them. I don’t say everyone should convert to Christianity, but the Bible might just be the greatest compilation of ethical guidelines to ever exist.
edit: yep, didnt realize what community i commented on
So if you ignore all the bad stuff, it’s full of good stuff? Brilliant!
Do you realize that there has been a great wealth of ethical discussion in the 1700 years since the Bible was compiled?
And you’re seriously going to tell me that the BIBLE, which condones genocide, slavery, the murder of homosexuals, etc, is more moral or ethical than ANYTHING that has been compiled in that time? Half of the Bible was written by litteral genocidal warmongers.
You could put two random children’s books together, and it would be a far superior compilation of morals than the Bible.
The bible is different texts wrote by different people. Many people refer the canonical gospels as the bible, halvar is probably talking about that part
“not that part, this part”
This feels like satire, and that’s saying a lot
In my opinion, people who don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to be “good” people have better morals because they aren’t motivated by anything other than just not being a piece of shit. They’re naturally good people
You’re telling me if someone has the urge to murder, but this fairy tale sky daddy is telling them they’ll be in eternal pain for doing so, that they’re morally better than someone who doesn’t have the urge to murder? “I would love to kill someone but I’m a selfish evil asshole and I myself don’t want to be in pain so I won’t kill this person, not out of empathy, but out of selfishness”
You gotta be trolling
My problem with what you said comes entirely from my personal experience. Most of the worst people I’ve come across in life have been theological Christians. Atheists tend to be bound by their own ethics, which I’ve found to be far more powerful than someone telling you how to behave.
I think it’s less the community and more the complete lack of logic based on what the text is their holy book says. If you use the Bible as a moral code, you are a horrible person
Whaaaaat? You saying I should have charged an extra goat for my 12 year old daughter?!?
Exactly, I murder and rape as much as I want. Which is zero. Because I’m not fucked up.
If the only thing stopping me from doing stuff like that is the words in an old book… There may be another problem there.
This user, instead of thinking critically about his views after so many users present evidence against his claims, moans that he “didn’t realize what community [they] commented on”. Not attempting to interact with or even counter the information and arguments presented, he simply ignores it because his beliefs cannot hold against consideration and reason.
he simply ignores it because his beliefs cannot hold against consideration and reason.
To me it look like the quality of discussion here is not really worth spending time with, they probably didn’t bother responding
So then explain to me why it was ok for God to order his followers to destroy the Tower of Babel and slaughter those building it? I believe God’s logic was, “If they complete this tower, it’ll show the world they don’t need me, and we can’t have that.”
How exactly was that ethical? Or should we discuss being allowed to beat your slave, so long as they don’t die within three days, you haven’t commited murder because they are your property? Is that the ethics and morality you’re speaking of?
Or maybe it’s the “an eye for an eye” part, where revenge is completely justified? I believe it took a Hindu nationalist to add “makes the world blind” to actually make that statement ethical.
Or maybe you’re trying to discuss one of the many, many instances of rape that occurs in the bible, but it’s completely justified and ethical because God said so?
Personally, if you base your morals and ethics off of the Bible, you’re a piece of shit who justifies their immoral behavior using an outdated text as some kind of shield because you think, so long as you repent riiiiiiiiight before you eat the big one, you’re good. 🙄
“Removed by mod”
The guy shared his opinion and didn’t wrote anything offensive. The mods here are being as bigots as the fanatics they hate
So do you have a copy of the comment…?
I remember when it was posted, it should be in the modlog anyway
