Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
Most of what you’re posting isn’t fact-checking, it’s traditional interpretation vs another, on a position of truth, just like a Sunday school teacher acts themselves.
You’ve done little much more than kind of point out some distinctions of why the Christian ideology came to exist while neglecting the foundational ones. Yes, obviously there’s contention of Christ meeting messianic criteria which is literally the whole fucking thing of Abrahamic religions being a plural. But then at the same time you keep referencing the Bible but no other literature whether Judaic, Islamic, or even Mesopotamian/Babylonian laws that suspiciously made their way over amongst other things.
Despite this, you seem to have picked full affirmation based on what the Torah asserts, despite being one of the main splits of Christianity. Completely glossing over how the entire function of Christian law in the NT is deeply covered by Paul—kind of the main guy that defined it all in detail, kicking off the ideology that would be established nearly three centuries later… Through the power of junk mail to different Mediterranean cities and societies, of all methods. Seriously, I don’t know how modern Thessaloniki somehow managed to be cooler than other Greek cities despite being an epicentre.
And then, out of no where, fast-forward to fascism? lol
I don’t think a 1st century apocalyptic preacher or even a 120-year old Nile baby is what Benito had in mind when establishing a political ideology of state rule over all other entities, including religions.
You’ve certainly got a position and I do not think it’s scholarly nor without personal religious influence.
You don’t get to claim that a book is the word of god with binding commandments and then say that the book is incomplete and subject to interpretation.
Which book?
I can’t tell if you’re being rhetorical. There’s many books like this…
Isn’t that a clue that they’re all bullshit and shouldn’t be heeded?
If it worked that way, we’d be ignoring sciences too. Unfortunately the only way is through good old-fashioned critical thought, which is difficult when “spread the word” is baked in.
Citing any religious text as though it holds value is reserved only for fools. There is a reality that doesn’t change regardless of whether religious texts align to it or not, which makes their contents historically interesting but ultimately weightless, worthless.
Edit: my line of questioning was too harsh. But gosh I really don’t even get what you’re trying to imply about intellectual reasoning.
Can you expand on this? That’s a pretty unhinged thing to say. Do you believe that there is One Godly Scientist that writes all Scientific Texts? Is The Scientific Man Who Writes All Scientific Texts in the room with us right now?
“BUT BUT PAUL SAID!”
Paul disagrees with Jesus. so if you follow Jesus, then Paul is a heretic. Mathew 5:17-20 makes that exceptionally clear- the law of moses as written is to be in force until the earth itself passes away.
I’ve not mentioned Paul because he’s fucking irrelevant to what JESUS says. But of course you want to dodge to that. Not that it particularly makes things better. Paul was the kind of ass who sent a ran-away slave back to his owner so that the owner could give him back to Paul as a servant. Paul doesn’t overturn slavery either- and indeed tells slaves to obey their masters. He tells women to obey their husbands and be silent in church. None of this is particularly new or revalatory.
“But they were disciples!”
All a disciple was, is a follower. The women of influence in the bible were largely (rich) people with houses that the early church met at. and while bringing religious affairs into homes like that did give women more access and influence, “WOMEN BE SILENT” is Paul’s instruciton. Details suck, amirite?
the definition of fascism:
Mussolini wasn’t the first authoritarian autocrat to exist. Jesus himself says that:
3.2) Is a king of the line of david.
3.3) that would defeat all of Israel’s enemies
3.4) and institute mosiac law on a global scale
3…5) through military force.
Yeah. Seems pretty fascist to me. Most societies back then were pretty fascist and that sometimes gets glossed over. Particularly when people today want to justify following some dude’s iron age fundamentalist yearnings for bronze age legal codes… details, amirite?
I’m curious as to why I should consider the teachings of Mohamed when talking about the teachings of Jesus?
Explain that to me. Should I also go to the Buddha, as well? Hell. why don’t we go to the shamanism found in central America? or maybe the Sentinel Islanders, who I’m sure have some thoughts…
Nice distraction. As for not including judaic literature… I have been indirectly this entire time. If you don’t like the NSRVUE translation of that literature, would you prefer the JPS? you can find it at Sefaria.org. Given that the topic is Christianity, though, I’d just as soon not put in that work. You’re welcome to cite that if you think you’ll find something relevant.
You’re definitely a former Christian. Maybe Jewish Either way you were a suburban warrior and that “training” disallows you from being subjective.
Or I’m completely wrong and you just somehow naturally landed in your pile of bullshit lol.
I encourage more reading.
Your concept of Fascism is almost insulting to the concept of rationales. You can link whatever Googled output you want, but it won’t change the fact that the guy literally invented it, wrote books and essays about it, and absolutely none of it has anything to do with what you’re talking about. It is as fallacious as cclaiming the ocean is the sky because it too is blue.
I’m incablemof being subjective?
What does that even mean?
Did you mean “objective”?- ie, that I can’t look at things without my personal bias?
Cuz I’d agree with that I can’t be objective- and yes, I’m considering it all from my personal subjective understanding.
As for “Mussolini invented fascism” … that’s a bit naive. Actually, that’s very naive. Yeah he named what we fascism today. He started the first National Fascist Party in Italy, too.
his fascism was a blend of nationalism, populism and extreme authoritarianism.
Now let’s consider that blend in the context of Jesus.
Claiming to be the messiah- a king of the line of David, who would defeat military enemies of Israel and liberate the oppressed Israelites and institute the theocratic monarchy, and lead that theocratic monarchy to control the entire world- means he’s very fucking nationalist.
He claims all authority comes from god. And that be is god, and that disobedience leads to death and eternal torture… he’s extremely fucking authoritarian.
His views of liberating the oppressed and uplifting the destitute; against the uncaring, immoral elite (Pharisees) who led the Jewish people away from the Law, and caused god to be angry with them and who allowed the Roman’s to oppress them in punishment.
So yeah. The term applies, even if it’s uncomfortable to admit, even if it’s anachronistic, does that change that the two have very similar commonalities?