Do We Have a Christ Followers Thread?

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Its like basically Jehovah's witnesses, the LDS, and apparently the SBC. 

Cowboy Church?

[Anastasis 23479]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Cowboy Church?

Other than driving past the sign on 281 outside of blanco, no really much experience with them. 

[bolverk 29694]

42 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Interesting.  I didn’t think there was a Christian religion that hadn’t adopted the Nicene Creed.  Learn something new every day. 

 

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Its like basically Jehovah's witnesses, the LDS, and apparently the SBC. 

I mentioned to Anastasis before that I was raised Southern Baptist and never really understood what the Holy Spirit was supposed to be. Still, then again, the concept was hardly ever mentioned. Growing up, I basically thought "the Trinity" was just some weird Catholic thing like saints and popes and stuff that was part and parcel of a religious hierarchical bureaucracy.

Our family attended church virtually every Sunday morning, including Sunday Bible school, until I was in junior high school. Maybe the First Baptist Church in my hometown was simply an outlier, not too big on anything other than the repetitive retellings of parables and Old Testament stories.

Anyway, the more I read these religion threads on Surly, the more I realize what a piss poor religious education I got as a kid. Certainly, deeper discussions never really took place, and I don't recall questions being highly encouraged. It was always just, "Shut up and believe, or you're going to hell." At least, that was the implied message.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure it would've prevented me from losing my faith as a teen, but maybe. 

Back to my original purpose for posting here, this is a reminder to Anastasis that he once mentioned to me that not believing in the Holy Spirit was considered heresy. This honestly kind of took me aback since I didn't realize that something so amorphous and ill-defined (and not emphasized at all in my church-rearing) was such a big deal.

Hell, I just had to use Google to remind myself exactly what the Nicene Creed is because it was never mentioned in the church where I grew up. I think I first heard of it in my 20s on some Discovery Channel ancient history documentary.

So, yeah, maybe the SBC is heretical, or maybe that particular small-town congregation just didn't have its shit together. I dunno.

Edited June 12 by bolverk
added missing word "concept"

[UpperWestside 6171]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Other than driving past the sign on 281 outside of blanco, no really much experience with them. 

I remember seeing one of these churches near Waxahachie on I-35 years ago. Never really put too much effort into understanding what they were about as I went to church in Oak Cliff at a small non-denominational church off the east end of Illinois Avenue in a quiet neighborhood.

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Other than driving past the sign on 281 outside of blanco, no really much experience with them. 

I think I want to go to one sometime, because I like outdoor cooking, rodeo, and Christ’s gospel.  What could go wrong?

1 minute ago, UpperWestside said:

I remember seeing one of these churches near Waxahachie on I-35 years ago. Never really put too much effort into understanding what they were about as I went to church in Oak Cliff at a small non-denominational church off the east end of Illinois Avenue in a quiet neighborhood.

That one in Waxahachie is huge, right? 

Edited June 12 by Bozo_Casanova

[UpperWestside 6171]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That one in Waxahachie is huge, right? 

From what I remember the building was not that big at the time, but this is years ago and my memory of it could be wrong. Looking at their website it’s a pretty big building, but I am not sure how old this sanctuary is that I am looking at.

[F250 28791]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bumping because empires once changed hands over stuff like this.  @Kyrie Eleison @Anastasis would love takes from both of you here, both on the amusing “porcine” metaphor and what this being an apparently lively topic says, if anything, about the state of the SBC.
 

 

It's simply anti-creedal nonsense.

Southern Baptists are the aggy of Christianity. They have their traditions "non-traditions" that they vehemently adhere to and being anti-Catholic is one of those traditions and a piss poor understanding of the Reformation is another.

One big issue is this part of the creed normally accepted by Protestants, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church"

Now, most Protestants will tell you that the "holy catholic and apostolic church" isn't the Roman Catholic Church. But that will not fly with Southern Baptists. No sir.

Also, Southern Baptists are legitimately anti-creedal while being confessional. They are simply put a by-product of American culture and not historical Christianity. They prefer "confessions" which implies choice over creeds which implies necessity.

People don't realize how much American Christian denominations are just a consequence of American history and not an adherence to the ancient Christian faith.

[DalTxHornFan 3108]

Timely for me.  I just went to the funeral of my 91 y/o uncle who spent his life as a Baptist minister.  He explained it to me as how they don't disagree with the Nicene Creed or even The Lord's Prayer, they just don't believe in the recitation of such stuff in public worship is appropriate.  Vain words and all.

I hope that every word spoken at my funeral comes straight from the 1928 BCP!  

[bolverk 29694]

10 minutes ago, F250 said:

It's simply anti-creedal nonsense.

Southern Baptists are the aggy of Christianity. They have their traditions "non-traditions" that they vehemently adhere to and being anti-Catholic is one of those traditions and a piss poor understanding of the Reformation is another.

One big issue is this part of the creed normally accepted by Protestants, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church"

Now, most Protestants will tell you that the "holy catholic and apostolic church" isn't the Roman Catholic Church. But that will not fly with Southern Baptists. No sir.

Also, Southern Baptists are legitimately anti-creedal while being confessional. They are simply put a by-product of American culture and not historical Christianity. They prefer "confessions" which implies choice over creeds which implies necessity.

People don't realize how much American Christian denominations are just a consequence of American history and not an adherence to the ancient Christian faith.

 

Growing up in that denomination, there were basically only two major often-stated principles:

1. To be saved, you have to believe Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, is the son of God and that he died and was resurrected.
2. Once saved, always saved.

Despite its name, Baptism isn't necessarily required to be saved because children can die before that happens, and they delay baptisms because it has to be a choice to do so.

From my recollection and understanding, those are pretty much the only fundamental creeds required in Southern Baptism when you boil it all down. In principle, it's a very streamlined faith. Of course, they also expect you to (demand you) socially conform to a whole bunch of other stuff that bleeds into culture war stuff.

Yet, even if you live your whole life as an asshole to others (thief, murderer, etc.) or a plain-old "sinner," you'll go to heaven if you believe in your heart in Jesus on your deathbed.

[Gatorubet 30264]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

Growing up in that denomination, there were basically only two major often-stated principles:

1. To be saved, you have to believe Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, is the son of God and that he died and was resurrected.
2. Once saved, always saved.

 

I am PCUSA, but the biggest Southern Baptist assholes that I ever met routinely referred me to ‘once saved always saved’. It was like a green light to them to act in a way Jesus would condemn, because it didn’t matter what they were doing because they were saved.  

Had they believed in karma (and dung beetles) I think they might’ve been nicer persons, because for a large portion of their life!they would’ve considered how their actions affected their future - instead of being told that there was no negative effect on your committing bad actions because you were already saved anyway.  

[TwiceHorn 31510]

Does this mean the ratfuck babtis don't have Doxology 809 in their hymnal?

I knew I hated them.

[tomahawk dunk 339]

I grew up Episcopal and always remember my Dad hustling us out of church saying "C'mon, we've got to beat the Baptists". That was in regards to getting to Wyatts cafeteria before them.

[YGIFS 19452]

The Nicene Creed is one of the most frequently mistranslated tenants of Christianity.  And that's saying something.  

But, as with most passages and creeds and doctrines---there are parts that stand out to me and are inspiring, a Light from Light---if you will.  And other parts where I feel like John Torturo "That don't make no sense!"  

And I fully acknowledge that Christianity is not supposed to be "Luby's style", where you just pick and choose what you want and what you don't want.  But then, why so many denominations?  Isn't that the inevitable result of Cafeteria Style Christianity?  My wife's cousin is probably the best and smartest Catholic priest I've ever known, and I've known a lot (I'm not Catholic).  And whenever he comes to visit (conveniently for a KU/UT game of some sort guised as parish business).  We have these robust discussions that even within Roman Catholicism, there are myriad orders and sects.  I admire the work of the Jesuits, for once every century or so, some new pope would come along and condemn science and reason as an affront to God.  But the Jesuit Order would maintain the findings and advancements in hiding so that all was not lost.  If there is only one set of teachings, why is Christianity probably the most fractioned religion on Earth?  Certainly geography and demography has something to do with it, along with translation issues across so many epochs and languages.  

The Old Testament is really just a historical account of creation, prominent Houses, punishments, lamentations, reigns of Kings, who begot who, and commandments.  It's like "game of Thrones" without the Dragons.  But it's not that complex a narrative.  The New Testament gets a little more fungible, but the lessons remain the same---though we fuck them up at every turn.  But other than translation issues and new applications to new times, neither testament is really that complex and difficult for adaptation.  It's far less complex than the Quran or the Suttas/Abidhamma, the Vedas, or the Kojiki.  Yet, it becomes the most poly-denominational religion the world has ever seen.  Why is that?  

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

50 minutes ago, tomahawk dunk said:

I grew up Episcopal and always remember my Dad hustling us out of church saying "C'mon, we've got to beat the Baptists". That was in regards to getting to Wyatts cafeteria before them.

He was right- Baptists would clean a Wyatt’s straight out of squash casserole. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

He was right- Baptists would clean a Wyatt’s straight out of squash casserole. 

The Wyatt’s eggplant casserole was the superior offering. I have the original recipe, on a Wyatt’s recipe card, around here somewhere.

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The Wyatt’s eggplant casserole was the superior offering. I have the original recipe, on a Wyatt’s recipe card, around here somewhere.

God that was delicious. If you find it, please copy.

[troph 24879]

All this time we went to luby’s after Hyde park Baptist service thinking we were all good Christians eating our Luann plates and pecan pie and there were factions and rivalries and disdain in the air then too. Humanity. Ugh.

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

9 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

I remember seeing one of these churches near Waxahachie on I-35 years ago. Never really put too much effort into understanding what they were about as I went to church in Oak Cliff at a small non-denominational church off the east end of Illinois Avenue in a quiet neighborhood.

The first Cowboy Church I ever saw was on a podunk 2-lane highway in the middle of no where.  There was a pretty big parking lot and it looked like over 50% of the spots were reserved for crippled people.

[YGIFS 19452]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The first Cowboy Church I ever saw was on a podunk 2-lane highway in the middle of no where.  There was a pretty big parking lot and it looked like over 50% of the spots were reserved for crippled people.

Like legit handicapped placards/plates or like 'Mentally Crippled'?  I could see it going either way.  

[Brisketexan 105161]

God that was delicious. If you find it, please copy.

I believe that this too was approved at the Council of Nicea:



Yea, verily. And all the people said amen.

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I believe that this too was approved at the Council of Nicea:



Yea, verily. And all the people said amen.

Glory!

[MissingInAction 25119]

1 hour ago, troph said:

All this time we went to luby’s after Hyde park Baptist service thinking we were all good Christians eating our Luann plates and pecan pie and there were factions and rivalries and disdain in the air then too. Humanity. Ugh.

Used to go to Lubys every Sunday after mass with my Catholic gf. We were always so fucking hungover, which made mass that much more horrible.

Knowing Lubys then hot sex was waiting for me always pulled me through.

[YGIFS 19452]

So you literally ate two of Ann's platters?  Kudos, sir.  Kudos.  

For many years when i traveled back home to Chicago for work.  I'd stick around until Sunday night or Monday morning to fly back to Austin.  Finish work stuff up, see mom and some other family on Saturday.  Then go into the city that night to hang out with old friends.  And invariably get towed along to "Ass Mass" (lotta guys I grew up with were Irish and Italian).  Wake up hungover at noon, get brunch with lotsa bloody marys, shower up, and head to church at 5:00p.  And it wasn't even fair how easy it was to pick up chicks there.  I usually had to head back to O'Hare that night but these guys would close ass like Chaz at a funeral.  Sometimes I think about how odd it must feel for some of those guys and gals from 15 years ago to walk into the same parish with to get their new baby baptized, looking over at the pew where they were doing hungover handjob homily.  

What were we talking about again?  Jesus.  Yeah, that dude's alright...

[F250 28791]

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Yet, it becomes the most poly-denominational religion the world has ever seen.  Why is that?  

Martin Luther. Once the idea that anyone could interpret the Bible outside of an ecclesiastical authority Christianity became a DIY kit religion.

Prior to the Reformation Christianity was not diverse. Then the Reformation began with a handful of educated people diverging towards different paths until we got to Uncle Fred with a 10th grade education starting his own church.

[DalTxHornFan 3108]

13 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

It's interesting that Martin Luther did so much to put the bible in the people's hands and allows them to read the bible for themselves (which so few Christians actually do), but also that even Martin Luther was biased in his theology and agendas-- most notably was vehemently opposed to the book of James and wanted it stricken from the bible.

James is my favorite book in the bible.  I try to read it every month.  If folks lived up to even half of what that book says, the world would be a much better place.

[bolverk 29694]

10 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I am PCUSA, but the biggest Southern Baptist assholes that I ever met routinely referred me to ‘once saved always saved’. It was like a green light to them to act in a way Jesus would condemn, because it didn’t matter what they were doing because they were saved.  

Had they believed in karma (and dung beetles) I think they might’ve been nicer persons, because for a large portion of their life!they would’ve considered how their actions affected their future - instead of being told that there was no negative effect on your committing bad actions because you were already saved anyway.  

Oh, I'm very aware, and that's why I ended my post with this:

Yet, even if you live your whole life as an asshole to others (thief, murderer, etc.) or a plain-old "sinner," you'll go to heaven if you believe in your heart in Jesus on your deathbed.

Seeing the blatant hypocrisy all around was one of the fundamental reasons I stopped going. L'enfer, c'est les autres.

[F250 28791]

11 hours ago, bolverk said:

Yet, even if you live your whole life as an asshole to others (thief, murderer, etc.) or a plain-old "sinner," you'll go to heaven if you believe in your heart in Jesus on your deathbed.

The Anakin Skywalker salvation plan. The dude committed genocide and gets to be a Force Ghost because of one last second decision? Makes no sense.

[F250 28791]

12 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

"Once Saved, Always Saved, so I can do whatever I want" is as insidious a belief as the Catholics who think they can do whatever they want and just ask for forgiveness in a confessional and be absolved and have no qualms about "pre-meditated" sins.

It's at best a juvenile understanding of the Lord and the relationship we should strive to have (and how we are supposed to act) and at worst it's a weaponized, superficial understanding of the Word.

But "superficial understanding of the Word" is an epidemic in our culture, on all sides, and is weaponized by the most liberal and the most conservative factions and I truly hate that. It's an abomination IMHO.

Ultimately people just need to read and study their bible, but precious few make the time. The devil's greatest trick isn't that he convinced people he didn't exist, as the old refrain often goes, but that he makes God's people "too busy" with worldly gobbledygook and makes their hearts idol factories and distracts them worldly identities. 

OSAS is a product of Free Grace theology and naturally leads to bad behavior without the notion of consequences. It's a modern creation born from a poor attempt to synthesize Reformed and Arminian theology. Literally, this view holds that nothing outside of faith is necessary unlike the Catholic position where repentance/penance is a necessity.

The difference between what you described with the Catholic is that it would violate the teachings of the Catholic church whereas there are no such requirements within Free Grace theology. You literally can do whatever you want as long as you made a profession of faith.

[F250 28791]

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Thank you. The OSAS and "Free Grace" people simply don't read their bibles, I think:

As Hebrews 10:26 says: 

English Standard Version
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Yet, the largest protestant denomination and millions of Non-denominational evangelicals believe in this and would argue that you don't understand the Bible.

This is where things get ridiculous.

[F250 28791]

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Again, IMHO, because they don't actually read and know the bible. In my many years I've observed that "Christians" who have read the bible for themselves, even once is few. Those who read the bible multiple times a week, almost non-existent (to say nothing of daily).

We are a country of cultural Christians rather than practicing, follwers of Christ who are worthy to be called Christians, as was first understood by the word introduced in the Book of Acts. This is something that both Christians and non-Christians alike can agree on in their criticisms and critique of American Christianity. 

Again, this is a theological position. It has nothing to do with it's adherents reading the bible. Their foundational theology only requires a profession of faith to obtain eternal salvation regardless of any behavior made after said profession of faith.

There is nothing required after that act. Sure, you can argue "well, a true believer will want to turn away from sin and be Christ like" but the reality is that's optional not necessary.

I've heard every half baked explanation to explain away this flaw except the acknowledgement that it is severely flawed.

[HouTex 1887]

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

"Once Saved, Always Saved, so I can do whatever I want" is as insidious a belief as the Catholics who think they can do whatever they want and just ask for forgiveness in a confessional and be absolved and have no qualms about "pre-meditated" sins.

It's at best a juvenile understanding of the Lord and the relationship we should strive to have (and how we are supposed to act) and at worst it's a weaponized, superficial understanding of the Word.

But "superficial understanding of the Word" is an epidemic in our culture, on all sides, and is weaponized by the most liberal and the most conservative factions and I truly hate that. It's an abomination IMHO.

Ultimately people just need to read and study their bible, but precious few make the time. The devil's greatest trick isn't that he convinced people he didn't exist, as the old refrain often goes, but that he makes God's people "too busy" with worldly gobbledygook and makes their hearts idol factories and distracts them worldly identities. 

Life long Catholic here and I'm not sure that is still the official view of the Church.  JP II clarified the Church's view by accepting "justification by faith alone" as correct.  I don't see how that is consistent with the old confession requirement.  Confession is still encouraged and considered a sacrament, but I'm not sure it's still necessary to be saved.  

[Samson's Wig 3193]

15 hours ago, bolverk said:

 

I mentioned to Anastasis before that I was raised Southern Baptist and never really understood what the Holy Spirit was supposed to be. Still, then again, the concept was hardly ever mentioned. Growing up, I basically thought "the Trinity" was just some weird Catholic thing like saints and popes and stuff that was part and parcel of a religious hierarchical bureaucracy.

Our family attended church virtually every Sunday morning, including Sunday Bible school, until I was in junior high school. Maybe the First Baptist Church in my hometown was simply an outlier, not too big on anything other than the repetitive retellings of parables and Old Testament stories.

Anyway, the more I read these religion threads on Surly, the more I realize what a piss poor religious education I got as a kid. Certainly, deeper discussions never really took place, and I don't recall questions being highly encouraged. It was always just, "Shut up and believe, or you're going to hell." At least, that was the implied message.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure it would've prevented me from losing my faith as a teen, but maybe. 

Back to my original purpose for posting here, this is a reminder to Anastasis that he once mentioned to me that not believing in the Holy Spirit was considered heresy. This honestly kind of took me aback since I didn't realize that something so amorphous and ill-defined (and not emphasized at all in my church-rearing) was such a big deal.

Hell, I just had to use Google to remind myself exactly what the Nicene Creed is because it was never mentioned in the church where I grew up. I think I first heard of it in my 20s on some Discovery Channel ancient history documentary.

So, yeah, maybe the SBC is heretical, or maybe that particular small-town congregation just didn't have its shit together. I dunno.

I was also raised SBC and also gave it all up as a teen once the con/cult became obvious.  I could have written this same thing just about word for word, so I don't think it was just your small town congregation.

Edited June 12 by Samson's Wig

[Gatorubet 30264]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

The Anakin Skywalker salvation plan. The dude committed genocide and gets to be a Force Ghost because of one last second decision? Makes no sense.

[Gatorubet 30264]

28 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Confession is still encouraged and considered a sacrament, but I'm not sure it's still necessary to be saved.  

As New Orleans is very Catholic, you would not believe the angst many of my colleagues have expressed wondering if they can get last rights confessions to their dying parents in time.  

The expression no longer connects with younger people, but I used to describe Catholics as operator assist and protestants as direct dial.

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I used to describe Catholics as operator assist and protestants as direct dial

That is incredibly apt 

[F250 28791]

18 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I see what you are saying. Essentially these folks are claiming a theological premise that isn't biblically based (exobiblical). That's a whole 'nother belief system then, in my opinion.

Well, you think it's not biblically based but they do follow a derivative of Reformed sola scriptura and will insist that it is in fact biblically based. You just disagree with the interpretation.

[Gatorubet 30264]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Well, you think it's not biblically based but they do follow a derivative of Reformed sola scriptura and will insist that it is in fact biblically based. You just disagree with the interpretation.

 

You are trying to start a genocidal war about the nature of the wine and the bread, aren’t you?

[F250 28791]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

You are trying to start a genocidal war about the nature of the wine and the bread, aren’t you?

[Brisketexan 105161]

As New Orleans is very Catholic, you would not believe the angst many of my colleagues have expressed wondering if they can get last rights confessions to their dying parents in time.  
The expression no longer connects with younger people, but I used to describe Catholics as operator assist and protestants as direct dial.

That is incredibly apt 

And both of them lie about what the voice on the other end of the line says, to serve their own ends.

[protestant on the phone with God] “yeah, I’m talking to God right now. Yeah…mmhmm…ok…yeah. So…God says I’m saved but you’re going to hell because you [do something mundane and secular I disagree with]. That’s what God said, straight from the horse’s mouth.” [/protestant on the phone with God]
For Catholics, just substitute “priest” for the dude on the phone.
And yes, the prevalence of evangelicals holding up their “I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior” card as the functional equivalent of this:



…as they practice all manner of assholery and cruelty makes me so, so, so ragey.

[Gatorubet 30264]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And both of them lie about what the voice on the other end of the line says, to serve their own ends.

[protestant on the phone with God] “yeah, I’m talking to God right now. Yeah…mmhmm…ok…yeah. So…God says I’m saved but you’re going to hell because you [do something mundane and secular I disagree with]. That’s what God said, straight from the horse’s mouth.” [/protestant on the phone with God]
For Catholics, just substitute “priest” for the dude on the phone.
And yes, the prevalence of evangelicals holding up their “I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior” card as the functional equivalent of this:



…as they practice all manner of assholery and cruelty makes me so, so, so ragey.

 

It’s what we have always done.

[Brisketexan 105161]

7 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

But then you have other churches who are false prophets / bad leaders who over-rotate on "ever-ending Grace" without giving any "truth" which leads to enabling sin. "All you need to do is be kind and Love is love" is usually their battle-cry.

I think what we as America get wrong is the healthy tension in the middle. We are a polarizing country of extremes, and so you get that with our churches as well.

I don't entirely disagree, but man, the overemphasis on not "enabling sin" -- which is 100% an excuse for "and therefore, I shall devote 200% of my faith-related [pretextual] actions at judging the fuck out of everyone" is where we are most tilted out of whack.  Log vs. speck sort of shit.  I won't say that "love is love etc." doesn't have its own issues, but being that such an approach is generally grounded in an approach of "so long as it does not harm another," then it's clear that we're all about fucking judgment.  We are MUCH closer to becoming a fundamentalist theocracy than we are to becoming a libertine society that doesn't care if one person's actions harm another.  

See Hillel: "Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn."  The element of "harm to another" is inextricable.  

TLDR: Faith is much more of an excuse/justification to inflict cruelty, punishment, and pain, than it is an excuse to let people get away with hurting others.  And yes, "I can do whatever I want because I got my 'Jesus is Lord' card" is the fucking ticket for that.

Edited June 12 by Brisketexan

[Samson's Wig 3193]

God told the SBC that IVF is a sin today.   Fuck those pieces of shit and anyone who follows their cult of hatred.   All religions are a cult, most of them benign, but Baptists can get fucked twice on Sundays and again on Wednesday evenings. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

Follow up - the REAL kicker on that is that the groups most likely to judge like a motherfucker....are also the groups most likely to excuse and cover up conduct that DOES fucking harm others (sexual offenses, etc.) because "well...he was tempted.  He's a godly man.  We should forgive him."  Judge like a motherfucker if someone simply BELIEVES differently, but excuse and cover up if someone else is actually harmed, BECAUSE the bad actor is a "believer, with a 'Jesus is Lord' card."

Excuse and protect a fucking rapist.  Because hey, he's a believer, and nobody is perfect!

Phone in a bomb threat to a drag queen who hasn't hurt anyone and who hasn't done anything except do a kickass job singing Gloria Gaynor tunes.

That's where we are.

[Samson's Wig 3193]

Just now, BeardIP said:

100% agree with you, in the case of American "faith" or mainstream cultural Christianity. 

And that is because those who would want their sin enabled usually aren't attemption to walk with Christ. I assume that's mentally exhausting with the level of cognitive dissonance that has to happen to reconcile your day to day life. I mean, just read the bible and those who aren't obviously and explicitly sinning will be convicted they are sinners and have a long way to go to look like Jesus.

No true Scotsman, amirite?

 

[Samson's Wig 3193]

8 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Do Catholics still call condoms / birth control a sin?

As far as I know, yes.  I highly doubt there are many Catholics under the age of seventy who follow that one, though.  I'll ask my Catholic wife and get back to you.  Like all religions, it's pick and choose what you like and ignore what you don't, because if you tried to actually follow every rule of any religion you'd go insane.

Edited June 12 by Samson's Wig

[F250 28791]

6 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Do Catholics still call condoms / birth control a sin?

The Catholic position on birth control predates modern birth control. The SBC changes their stance depending on how the political winds blow. They are constantly rearranging their stance on things and lack any consistency.

Fifty years ago years ago they wouldn't take this position because it was a Catholic issue but now that it's a political issue they need to adjust their religious views to align with their political views.

[F250 28791]

25 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

God told the SBC that IVF is a sin today.   Fuck those pieces of shit and anyone who follows their cult of hatred.   All religions are a cult, most of them benign, but Baptists can get fucked twice on Sundays and again on Wednesday evenings. 

Coincidentally, there is a Senate vote on IVF coming up in the next few days. Considering SBC views trickle out to the non-denom evangelicals, this is probably an attempt to mute the concerns of IVF banning. Jesus ain't got nothing to do with it.

[bolverk 29694]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

The Catholic position on birth control predates modern birth control. The SBC changes their stance depending on how the political winds blow. They are constantly rearranging their stance on things and lack any consistency.

Fifty years ago years ago they wouldn't take this position because it was a Catholic issue but now that it's a political issue they need to adjust their religious views to align with their political views.

It's hard to believe today, but the SBC was pro-choice back in the 1970s and praised Roe v. Wade. I distinctly recall my mom coming home one evening around 1980 from some church meeting where the topic must've been discussed and suddenly becoming vocally and vehemently anti-choice when she'd never expressed an opinion on the topic before.

When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role. Some were hesitant to take a position on abortion because they saw it as a “Catholic issue,” and worried about the influence of Catholic teachings on American religious observance.

Shortly after the decision was handed down, The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.

So, yeah, SBC dogma became rather fluid around the time that modern efforts to tear down the wall between church and state began to be a thing again.

[F250 28791]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's hard to believe today, but the SBC was pro-choice back in the 1970s and praised Roe v. Wade. I distinctly recall my mom coming home one evening around 1980 from some church meeting where the topic must've been discussed and suddenly becoming vocally and vehemently anti-choice when she'd never expressed an opinion on the topic before.

When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role. Some were hesitant to take a position on abortion because they saw it as a “Catholic issue,” and worried about the influence of Catholic teachings on American religious observance.

Shortly after the decision was handed down, The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.

So, yeah, SBC dogma became rather fluid around the time that modern efforts to tear down the wall between church and state began to be a thing again.

I have an SBC background too. I remember the reprogramming in the mid 80's. I also remember the effort of getting old yellow dogs to switch sides back when the religious right first started making their moves.

[Gatorubet 30264]

20 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's hard to believe today, but the SBC was pro-choice back in the 1970s and praised Roe v. Wade.

And the NRA was in favor of many gun control measures.  What a long strange trip it’s been.