836
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 217 points 11 months ago

Despite a long track record of anti-LGBTQ+ comments and advocacy, he has insisted he can’t be a hateful person because he’s a Christian.

I think he's got it backwards. He can't be a Christian because he's a hateful person.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 85 points 11 months ago

Right, this "not a real Christian" bullshit that Christians use to brush away the hateful people and teachings within your religion.

Own up to these people, they're your fellow Christians no matter how much you claim they aren't. Own them and fix them, instead of sweeping them under the rug and claiming they aren't real

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

If they have to tell you they are Christian, they are not. If they have to tell you they are honest, they are not. If the have to tell you that they don't watch porn, they do.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

There's no Christian stamp of approval. Your are the religion you say you are

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

In many cases, they created these monsters

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If they're not following the teachings of the founder of the religion, they're not part of the religion. It's not the No True Scotsman fallacy, because being a part of the religion requires them to do something (repent and love others) which they refuse to do.

Incidentally, I'd love to "fix them," but they don't think that I'm a Christian because I don't worship Trump.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Nougat@kbin.social 31 points 11 months ago
[-] 520@kbin.social 37 points 11 months ago

I totally get your point, but I think there is validity in calling into question your right to identify as a member of a given religion when you go directly against your religion's teachings.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

Except what are the "real" teachings? How do you know? Who is the authority? Where is the solid evidence. The god of the Bible is silent on the matter of our interpretations over the centuries (if he even exists).

The Bible seems to condemn homosexuality in a few places and condemns "sexual immorality". But interpretations of these passages and how they relate to many other passages are numerous, each person claiming to have it all figured out. Some think the OT doesn't count anymore. Some think it still does but Jesus is essentially a get out of jail free card, some think Jesus is all about love, some define love to include various levels punishment, some believe God creates pre-damned people. Some think homosexuality is fine but the passages refer to sexual abuse. So we come back to the question: which interpretation is "correct"?

These books are translated from content written millennia ago. The gospels were written a generation after Jesus and we don't have the sources. The oldest version of books in the OT dates centuries after the originals. Thus, evidence is weak that the originals said the same thing as the current version. We have insufficient evidence for divine inspiration in the writing, copying or translating of said materials.

When evidence is lacking then the only alternative, belief (faith) provides a very unreliable source of information.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

How is anti lgbt sentiment anti Christian? It's very Christian.

[-] 520@kbin.social 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Jesus talked very little about LGBT and a lot more about not forcing your beliefs onto other and not being a dick to people simply because they do things differently from you.

Not to mention that their stance on God hating gays is literal blasphemy, because again, there isn't much said about being gay by Jesus

[-] finkrat@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

To add on, the parable of The Good Samaritan also highlights his opinions on how Christians should treat people that are of a different, "reviled" culture than their own (Samaria in the story) by defining who a "neighbor" is and emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (115 replies)
[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

"No True Scotsman" is when you attempt to protect your generalized statement by placing counterexamples outside the bounds of the statement. But in the case of Christianity, people who don't love are self-selecting out of that group by the words of the founder himself, who said "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

I'm not saying they aren't a Christian, and the OP isn't saying that either. The person who is hateful is saying that they aren't a Christian, as surely as a person who kicks puppies for fun is saying that they aren't a dog lover. They could swear up and down later that they can't be a puppy kicker because they're a dog lover, but the fact that they're kicking puppies self-selects them out of that group.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Incidentally, the wording of the fallacy here is an important point to observe. The qualifications for being a Scotsman are that someone is geographically or genetically connected to Scotland; and while there are fiddly gray areas at the edges, no one can say that you're not a Scotsman because of a thing you do because the qualification is a connection to a place.

But the qualifications for being a Christian are explicitly a thing you do. Well, a thing you do and a thing you believe, but those two things are inherently linked by the fact that the object of belief (Jesus) commands the action (love).

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 90 points 11 months ago

Important to understand that there's also a form of civil war going on within the Church in the US between the more liberal churches, which this pastor represents, and the conservative, evangelical churches, which Mike Johnson represents.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago

Can confirm.

In my town, a lot of the churches are more about peace and love and helping the community. They fly lgbtq+ flags. Their biggest outdoor events involve feeding homeless, or cleaning the parks.

They absolutely hate these mega church types, and often get lumped into the shit.

[-] whereisk@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

That sounds a lot more Christ-like (feed the hungry, give as much as you can to the poor etc) than whatever mutation the evangelicals are worshipping.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

There's a church near me that flies a pride flag. Now, I'm not Christian (or LGBTQ) so I wouldn't go to pray there, but I was happy to see it. Too many places of worship make the news for how hateful they are. It's nice to see one advertising how inclusive they are.

Again, I'm not Christian and thus not an expert on Jesus, but from what I know his message was a pretty good one. Help the poor, the sick, and anyone else who needs assistance. If more churches actually followed Jesus instead of screaming that the Bible says you should buy more guns, assault immigrants, hate people different from you, and worship Trump while giving the pastor as much money as possible, then maybe they would be in better shape.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 43 points 11 months ago

Important to note that the sides are in like a 5:1 ratio and Johnson is on the larger side.

Also the liberal churches are far older and are shrinking; denominations and mega-churches who act like Johnson's are growing.

Young people see it all as a bunch of bs, except the radical ones, which drives religion to greater and greater insanity.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

It's also a simple matter of funding.

The megachurches preaching prosperity gospel, cramming 10,000 people into a building, and hoarding their wealth (most don't pay apportionments to a larger denomination that is used to fund service projects) find it easier to keep the doors open than the little churches that focus on compassion and community service.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 83 points 11 months ago

It's worse than that, he's a Republican

[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 81 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The Devil having found no traction with drug addicts, thieves & prostitutes, and perl programmers has decided to use Christian leaders.

It would be believable if the first groups didn't entirely compose last one.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

I agree that the devil would go after perl programmers, as sloth is a sin.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WhyYesZoidberg@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

| Linux kernel 6.6.6 released

Coincidence?! I think not

[-] slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world 67 points 11 months ago

Matthew 7:15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

"I'll take 'Metaphor Translations' for $100, Alex."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago

If I believed in God or the Devil, I'd find claim that he's controlled by the Devil more believable than Johnson's claim that he's working for God.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

Though these days I associate "Christianity" more with hate than with love.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 months ago

Welcome to the club. Hateful is 90% of the Christianity queer people experience.

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago

While I am mightily amused to see the God Squad fighting amongst themselves...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] theodewere@kbin.social 41 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Mike Johnson worships himself, like a lot of ignorant people who call themselves Christians right now.. calls himself Moses and so on, because he's full of pride.. and yeah, that is the same as worshipping Satan, or "being controlled by the Devil" or however else you want to say it..

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

His behavior seems consistent with someone who has delusions of grandeur. I'm not sure a religious explanation is necessary or verifiable.

[-] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 12 points 11 months ago

I think when a Christian minister is making a statement about a guy who is VERY vocal about how his every action is influenced by his being a Christian, then a Christian denounciation feels adequate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This just in: superstitious con artists engage in slapfight.

Film at 11.

[-] Hairyblue@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago

Mike Johnson controlled by the Devil...so the Devil IS the reason we can't have a nice government to meet our needs.

As an Atheist, I think it is awful that Mike Johnson works with the Devil.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

I don't know if this weird little man is controlled by the xtian devil, but I do know that like so many of today's cons/GOP, he is one creepy weirdo. A party filled with creepy weirdos.

Imagine thinking your god (note the lack of a capital g the provincial xtians love to use) gives you a right to poke around in others' lives.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

He supports the Antichrist, of course he is evil.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is just an op-ed piece that links to another op-ed piece.

Seriously.

Does anyone know if there are any political communities that don’t consider op-ed pieces to be news? For example, a community that has strict rules that news must be free of journalistic bias and only cite news that factually happened with no agenda?

Because that would be cool.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 11 months ago

Despite a long track record of anti-LGBTQ+ comments and advocacy, he has insisted he can’t be a hateful person because he’s a Christian.

Oh, what a relief.

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 11 months ago

"Controlled by the devil" - that's silly. I think the real debate is whether he's controlled by Godzilla or Mothra.

But we can be sure he's not controlled by Gamera because Gamera is a friend to all children. (and he's really neat)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

The devil has seen better days. You would expect a devil controlled human to be some sorta uber-human ultimate fighter. Zipping around the battlefield, single handedly committing whole outrages. Not some schmuck in a suit who got his job because of political stalemate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] squiblet@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago

Christians have had years to see that Trump is not what they’d call a “godly” person. It baffles me how segments of the population who claim to uphold Christian ethics can so overwhelmingly support him, but of course by definition they are not objective or logical people.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
836 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4949 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS