159
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 86 points 1 year ago

All while praising the orange kumquat for his "Christian" values.

Fucking astounding.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They're fascists, plain and simple. It absolutely doesn't matter what "holy book" they wave about, be it the Bible, the Qur'an, Mein Kampf or The Art of the Deal.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

That can’t happen. They have to be without sin to cast a stone.

[-] spicytuna62@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

YoU'rE taKinG tHAt VERse oUt oF cOnTExt!!!1!1!11!1!!!

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Many of them believe themselves to be sinless. This isn’t the sect for people with reading comprehension

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s not that they believe they are sinless, it’s that they believe their beliefs have made them pure in the eyes of “the Lord” this is really a threat of “convert to our religion or die”

[-] TastyWheat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Nah, just the first stone! Skydaddy never mentioned anything about the second stone onwards.

[-] gornar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

"Let he who has a fuckton of sin like throw the next ones"

[-] Hardeehar@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

I'm okay with that if they're willing to stone themselves to death for adultery as well.

Usually the people who want to stone others don't want themselves included in the stoning.

I'm sure there's a high percentage of adulterers in that group.

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Oh man, who’s their favorite president then?

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

AKA

Man who wants to stone women uses religion based on guy who allegedly claimed no one was righteous enough to be the one to stone a woman for adultery to justify the stoning of women for adultery.

And yet somehow I get the feeling that this individual would take offense at it being pointed out that he is technically advocating for (ancient) Jewish law trumping Christian principles.

[-] GiddyGap@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

John 8: 5-10

In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

[-] DevCat@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Oh, have I got a list for them... Let me get out that RNC member sheet.

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago
[-] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

“When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭7‬ ‭NIV‬‬

TAKEN INTO CONTEXT, Yeshua was revealing the hypocrisy of the ones charging a woman with adultery. It is believed he wrote their sins in the dirt right before he said that.

[-] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

haha what - wait, so in this verse Jesus was not attempting to point out that no one is without sin? It was just that these particular accusers were hypocrites?

Shit if they had just chosen someone without sin to throw the stones. You know, any of the wide selection of people... unaffected by original sin?

The fuck was Jesus even here for - let's just get to stoning everybody! Donald Trump can be the magistrate who decides when someone accused of doing something is guilty. Hallelujah!

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

A stone whizzed past Jesus' left ear and SMACKED into the woman. "AWWW, MOM!" yelled Jesus.

(Immaculate Conception of Mary joke)

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago
[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ffwFXGPRDu4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It was actually Jesus' way of saying he's got first when the stones start flying

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

"And Pat Robertson threw the first stone because he believed he was without sin."

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

So they’re not really Christian nationalists, but Pharasitic nationalists?

Can’t say you follow someone while heading in the opposite direction and actually be believable.

[-] Gazumi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

These are the sort of morons who would encourage good Christians to fly a plane into a building. #notthetaliban

[-] BornOnJuly1@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Rolling Stone, doing its part to stoke the fires of the culture war, when we should be focused on class and all of the fucking billionaires, not ultra fringe right and left nutjobs who in no way represent mainstream anything.

[-] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

Trump had dinner with a white Christian nationalist. The right wing nut jobs are now mainstream. So while I acknowledge the class war is important, ain’t no billionaire gonna tell me to “go back to your country”.

[-] HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

UNO Reverse Card

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
159 points (80.7% liked)

politics

18904 readers
3164 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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