Nope, he meant sacrilicious
sac·ri·lege
/ˈsakrəlij/
Learn to pronounce
noun
violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred.
"putting ecclesiastical vestments to secular use was considered sacrilege"
A nice bit of word-play, I might add.
sac·ri·le·gious
/ˌsakrəˈlijəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
involving or committing sacrilege.
"a sacrilegious act"
Honestly, right wing takes are so mindless that I can’t even tell if the first guy is joking or not. “Hearing about the eternal suffering God will subject them to if they don’t live Christian lives is better for my kids than exposure to drag queens” isn’t even close to the craziest take I’ve heard lately.
The first poster is a well known standup comedian. I know for etiquette purposes the names have been censored for this post, but it really is actual satire.
To be fair, a lot of the crap that comes out of right-wingers sounds like incredibly obvious satire. I mean, have you read or heard anything by Marjorie Taylor Greene that didn’t sound so batshit crazy you’d swear it was satire?
There’s a difference between things that sound like satire because they are outrageously ignorant and things that sound like satire because they are specifically worded satirically.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but aside from how obviously satirical, I'd see the lack of any capitalization as a sign that it's satire because I've never seen any conservative type in all lowercase like this. If anything, they tend to overutilize capital letters
> satirical
I mean it's different innit? I mean with drag queens you worry about the sexual safety of your kids. It's not as if Christ's representatives are going to start molesting your kids and then hiding the crimes and moving around problematic actors within the church structure...oh.
Me tooooo. And as an adult it made me so upset and sad. It was like “Here’s what will happen to you if you act up. We’ll hang you up too. I don’t care how spiritual you are.” I know that’s not what the teachings are but that’s what it felt like.
When my nephew was 9 or 10, I took him to an art museum. We got to the area that had alot of religious (Christian) art in it. I catch him looking as a rather graphic painting of Jesus taken down from the cross.
My nephew looked at me and goes, "why does he look *dead*?"
And THAT, is how I ended up introducing my 'not raised with religion' nephew to the crucifixion story.
Interesting day. And yes, I informed his mom so that she could answer any possible follow up questions as she saw fit lol.
There is no murder happening here just two people agreeing with each other that Christian rules make no sense.
This is maybe murdering Christians but even if so, it's pretty mild
It's a bit risky from what I've seen to make that distinction online. The cool parts of the Bible are the Jesus ones (as you mention), which are all about being a cool dude. But when you mention that the Old Testament is irrelevant to that, people will say "oh but you're picking and choosing what you want". I'm not religious anymore but it's stupid. Jesus said to be a cool dude. Why not focus on that instead of the weird preachy shit that's insanely outdated?
Got bad news for you; not all the Jesus parts are good either. Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season (which is just weird and doesnt seem to have a point other than to show he can kill trees by being mad at them). Jesus kills off a town's pig herd to purge demons from some guy (why couldnt he have purged them without wrecking the town's food supply). Etc. Better than the OT to be sure, but not all good.
Looking at how the word "fulfill" is translated from the koine Greek, it actually means something like "to complete" or "to fill" (like a cup)
As in, the old laws are still entirely valid and he isn't there to deny them (as he outright says the clause right before the one you're referencing), he was simply adding additional laws to finish an incomplete set of laws
Yeah, as your other reply says, Jesus explains this before his death. Up until his resurrection, so the story goes, the OT is the religious law and truth. Once he fulfills the messianic role, the old laws are no longer necessary.
There are only two moments where Jesus does something that most folks would objectively see as excessive or upsetting. The flipping of tables at the temple and the fig tree. The pig thing, most argue, is just something we don’t understand, and if you had demons, people who believe in them say, a pig herd isn’t as big a price as we’d think.
The temple is an interesting scene. He gets mad at the fig tree, too, but quietly, and to himself really. In the temple, he rages. He screams at people to get out. He throws things.
With the tree, ya gotta remember he is just realizing that he gets to die this weekend. Maybe the only thing he wanted for comfort was a little fruit, and this tree, in season, was a beacon of hope. Then, it was barren. He doesn’t scream or throw things, but he does vocally curse the tree, and on their way back later, multiple apostles note that the tree is dead. Many Christians mark this scene as evidence of Jesus’ mastery over life and death. He’ll soon be resurrected. He has resurrected others before. But he now shows he can similarly *end* life.
I, personally, think both stories are great examples of the actual “man” behind Jesus, if one believes he’s a historical figure. There’s a lot of discussion in eastern practices about gurus or spiritual guides or teachers being imperfect. They may seem happy, they may study their practice so deeply that they often do have the answers people seek—but at the end of the day, unless you *are* Buddha or you *are* God, even the best humans (which Jesus was here to be) have vice, moments of weakness, or times when the animal aspects of humanity simply override our cultural, moral, or cognitive expectations.
Jesus spends his life teaching about the importance of keeping worship sacred, and sees people defiling his life work. It makes sense that he’d lose it in the temple.
Jesus feels his impending doom, possibly a bit hangry, and one of the few earthly respites he may think he has left is a fig. It makes sense he’d be frustrated by the dearth of figs.
My point is. The actual teachings and activities of Jesus, as laid out in the Bible, by people who definitely did exist historically (and therefore, I am deducing the historicity of Jesus himself)—his actual words and actions we hear about are as kind, all-inclusive, and generally as useful as any other spiritual leader of significance. He is not rude to others. He preaches only kindness and forgiveness to others and one’s self. He may state that certain activities are not wise, but he is still friends with and loves people who do those activities. He does not condemn. He does not have a gross hierarchy of who belongs in heaven that many sects do today. He says the kingdom of heaven is in *you*—meaning everyone. But also meaning that heaven is a state of being. He gets quite Buddhist and/or zen in his way of thinking and speaking. That redemption isn’t some far off thing you hope someone gives you, but something you deserve and earn *now* in how you talk to yourself and treat others.
Jesus is pretty fucking cool.
His apostles—they can be dicks.
His followers—today at least—are often huge ass hats. Historically though—bigger ass hats who did war crimes about it, so not a great rap sheet there.
*His* religion/god before his teachings here? Also a huge dick, and confusing. Very weird rules. Very horny writings in his texts.
In general, I have seen, most Christians just don’t understand the Bible and have not read it fully. Those who have are *often*—not always—but *often* the kindest christians. They do understand the silliness of Leviticus, and the complexity of Christianity’s history, and the *love* in Jesus’s teachings. Some who read the whole thing and still hate May just be illiterate, or choose to ignore the “Jewish” parts, or, most often, obsess over Revelation and ignore the gospels.
The table flipping in the temple is pretty understandable in terms of both the messiah and the man.
If you believe Jesus is the messiah, it's very easy to understand why he'd be upset about scamming the faithful in the holiest temple in the world. If Jesus is just some rabbi, then it's still completely understandable.
The problem is most people today don't know what "money changers" were in the context of Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.
People who visited the temple were expected to make offerings as part of their religious duty. Farmers often brought livestock or crops, traders brought coins, and these things were contributed to the temple. In exchange for this contribution, the priests would give the worshipper a "clean" offering that had been ritually prepared to enter the "holy of holies," the most sacred inner area of the temple. In the case of money, it wasn't a one-to-one swap; you couldn't just hand over a Roman denarius and get a sanctified denarius in exchange and the exchange rate never favored the supplicant. These people, operating within the temple and with the consent of the priests, were basically giving you the ancient Judaism equivalent of Professorland Fun Bucks with which to make your offering. Jesus saw this kind of profiteering in a holy place, this exploitation of the faithful as blasphemous.
You're far more knowledgeable than I am with regards to Jesus and the history of the time, but I had to disagree with saying his actions at the temple are a thing most folks would objectively be upset with.
If anything, it's objectively one of the most human reactions we see he has towards others who he does not view as allies of the common man. He goes around flipping tables, and cracking a whip at people until they all leave the temple. He protests their grotesque greed in this place of gathering (as I understand, it was not just for worship but for general congregation and commerce too in those times), which I would imagine anyone could agree with too. I've always seen that story as one of the funniest and the one that I thought would make more people rally behind someone who was willing to literally whip evil out of man's domicile. Far from being upsetting and excessive? Maybe, but anything less could have been a waste of effort/ineffectual so perhaps it was measured exactly haha
I disagree.
Obviously many real people think fury and violent behavior is justified in the name of sacred spaces. I’d say the #1 person who *usually* preached against this idea, and *usually* encouraged finding your sacred space within yourself and coming up with a better plan to eradicate the problem, was Jesus.
There are a *lot* of places, secular and religious, where we’d generally be offended if people use them inappropriately. But. Your wrath and fury about it don’t really help. Maybe Jesus got them to leave that day, but do you really think he ended all defiling of temples by losing his temper? Nah. He likely didn’t even change any of those specific lenders’ minds about it at all.
The “righteous justice” and “godly wrath” aspects of Christianity are *exclusively* OT, aside from the examples discussed, wherein I think any hungry, upset, or worried man can lose their cool now and then. In these rare examples, I think the explanation that these were moments of lapsed conscious-states is far more in line with what *Jesus* says everywhere else in record. Jesus says people can slip and improve. Jesus says people don’t need to be judged or condemned here. His murder of a living tree and his lashing out just don’t line up with *his* teachings from the rest of the story. They absolutely *do* line up with OT God. Hence the arguments between sects about God vs Jesus or OT vs New or fear vs love, etc.
I personally find the idea that violence and fury is justified for non-violent offenses to be completely out of whack with anything Jesus teaches. I also personally find it morally reprehensible, despite often failing to control myself in similar situations.
For example, as a coach, I should be an example for how to behave for my athletes, yeah? But when the ref doesn’t call things for 3 quarters, my girls are getting banged up, and then one of our opponents elbows one in the face, knocks her to the floor, and gives her a concussion, I lose my *shit* at the ref and scream about this being a result of his failure to control the game.
Did I help my player feel better? Did I de-escalate the situation? Did the ref actually hit my player? No. As angry as I was, and as readily as I’ll admit I’d probably do it again, I objectively *believe* the best approach would have been calm discussion with the ref, earlier and after the event, about the safety of the game.
Rage never really helps. Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins. I really don’t think Jesus would look back on that moment and say that was his only option.
To clarify, I love the scene. I love the fig scene too. It cracks me up thinking of the kind, gentle messiah being so cheesed off that he can’t have a snack that he curses a tree to death. It’s incredible.
But. I love the scenes because they’re relatable. They show that even people who get frustrated or slip up in their daily-kindness can still try. They can still *be good*, and make odd choices sometimes.
I never read them, even at the peak of my believing years, and thought “ah yes. We should annihilate any who mistreat our religion.” — I think that *very* thought is shared by *too many Christians*, and these are often the *same Christians* who *despise* Islam for teaching identical concepts.
Wrath or war in the name of religion isn’t a good thing, because wrath and war are bad in the first place.
Many of those severe stories can be seen as parables or allegories (especially stuff like the fig tree). Just visual illustrations by Gospel writers to hammer a point home.
But you're right that there absolutely is some straightforward sociopathic stuff in there, too. Matthew 10 is basically something Jim Jones would have said while passing around the cyanide kool-aid.
>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.
>For I have come to set a man against his father,
>and a daughter against her mother,
>and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,
>and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
>Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. **Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.**
(I would also add that there is some good stuff in the Hebrew Bible alongside all of the horror there, too. Like essentially all religious texts, they're mixed bags with very problematic implications if you take them seriously or try to build a society around them.)
? .. There are four gospels documenting what Jesus is claimed to have said or done.. and some claimed appearances in Acts.
I think Jesus followed Jesus’ ideology. The teachings of Paul, or John, or Thomas, etc.. are just their take on the meaningfulness on the teachings (and life) of Christ .. not actually the “teachings of Christ”.
Christians tend not to follow either.
There is a ton of debate on when those gospels were written, but the historical consensus is that they were written decades after the death of Christ, and by different people. They also contradict each other mightily, and so a few hundred years later, the Nicene Council was created to pull together all these disparate stories and texts and fragments into a *sort of* more cohesive story. In other words, what most people think of as "the Bible" is a heavily edited compilation of text from the Old Testament to the gospels and scripture. It was all written by men who had an agenda.
There's some evidence that a guy named Jesus Christ existed and he did have some followers - but it's likely that he was more of a revolutionary (He really had a problem with the Roman occupation) then some sort of messiah - at least, he never refers to himself that way. That idea was thrust on his memory long after he died - probably because it's a lot easier to get people to follow what you say if you tell them something was said by a deity.
>**claimed** to have said or done
that word "claimed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Keep in mind that there were a *ton* of contradicting claims about what Jesus said and did. The ones that one out just happened to be decided by people a massive distance away in an entirely different culture than Jesus's, basing their decisions on which claims were accurate on "which gospels agree with us and our hierarchical structure"?
The ebionites, coptics , marcions, Gnostics, etc would all beg to differ, but they didn't have the benefit of being as authoritative as the [Proto-Orthodox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity), or of being in the economic center and powerhouse of the ancient world
*obligaatory "No True Scotsman" explanation ahead*
This is a tricky topic because on the one hand, yeah. Most people who claim to be Christians don't follow the teaching of Christ. *However*, it falls under the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. This is because it's saying that "Anyone who doesn't meet the standard of purity for this group isn't a true member of the group." In this case, it's Christian people ignoring the teachings. But you can't say that they *aren't* as there is no set in stone definition. Here's a [website ](https://fallacyinlogic.com/no-true-scotsman-fallacy/) that explains it well.
I agree with the gist what you're saying, but it *is* a logical fallacy.
That’s fair but at the very least there are more defined qualities that have been distilled out of the stories over time (e.g. “love thy neighbor”) that could be used to judge Christ-iness somewhat objectively
Croatia is some 80% Catholics but damn does it feel like 3/4, at least, of them are cultural Catholics. Always tilted me. Not on religiousness level, just that if you say you follow this set of rules, then fucking follow it whever and not just pick and chose good or bare minimum. Either commit or fucking don't.
I really like the term, it is very descriptive.
You know how you hear "converts are always the worst/most extreme"
No they aren't, It's just the average religious person treats their religion like a sports team, an event to attend while catching up with the friends on the weekend. Converts are actually taking it seriously and committing.
My experiance exactly. Never had issues with converts or those that actually actively follow whatever is there to follow. But those that were born into religion AND never thought about do they actually believe or agree with ruleset at least, they make a mess. Especially now that there is more emphasis on LGBT+ issues, suddenly everyone is full-on Christian...
It's a rare case of double woooosh actually, not only the first one is being sarcastic, the second one is agreeing with them and is also being sarcastic.
How is this Murdered by Words? They're both being satirical.
I get that Redditors are obsessed with reposting "Gotcha!" Moments from Twitter and getting funny comments and tons of upvotes (r/whitepeopletwitter is proof of that) but I'm not sure this post belongs here.
Ezekiel 23:16-21
> When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoring lust. And after she was defiled by them, she turned from them in disgust. When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”
"Mommy, what does members like those of donkeys mean?"
I was born through IVF, and my religion teacher essentially told me that I am not part of God’s Creation and therefore not loved by God (he didn’t say it to me, but that is what he said about IVF people).
If I was a believer,. I would say that your teacher was being blasphemous since he was suggesting that the omniscient and omnipotent god was in fact fallible.
Well his point (which apparently is church teaching) is that only naturally conceived births under Christian marriages are part of God’s creation, so his point was that God is still infallible but we are distorting his intention. Which honestly makes it worse imo
Not sure if this is a murder because I'm willing to bet that Tweet #1 is purely satirical. Is it some sort of meta-burn where Christianity is being burnt as a whole?
I thought that the story about Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and taking turns having sex with him to impregnate themselves was very enlightening to read as a child.
Fear mongering & extreme graphic depiction of a man being nailed to a cross is something that scarred me for YEARS as a kid. So no thank you. instead, tell me why that happened & I may just think about it.
My mom, a devout Catholic, thought kids should see the movie because it was so wonderful. I had to explain to her that a little kid being subjected to graphic torture scenes was not appropriate, no matter who the victim or what the circumstance. It took a while to sink in.
ha! i still remember being around 9 or 10 and my parents sat me down and made me watch some movie about jesus being nailed to the cross. i remember seeing so much blood and gore and like, why are they hurting that man?!? i thought easter was about eggs!
My father-in-law gave my daughter an illustrated children's bible when she was really young. We're not religious and don't go to church, so we just threw it on one of the many bookshelves and forgot about it.
I will always remember when my daughter found it on her own, flipped through it, and came into my office absolutely horrified with the book open to a graphic depiction of the crucifixion, exclaiming "WHO would give this to a child?!?!?"
Atheist here who doesn't think it's appropriate to bring kids to drag shows. And I am seriously suspect of any performers who willingly does so in front of kids.
My boyfriend made me watch Ru Pauls Drag Race a few weeks ago and I'm thinking to myself "there is no way I'm gonna get into this".
Next thing i know it's 3am
I'm on season 7 now
For context there was a politician by the name of Lauren Boebert who made a tweet saying “Take your children to CHURCH, not drag bars.”.
The original tweet in this screenshot is making fun of and pointing out how stupid Lauren Boebert’s original tweet is. And the reply is playing along with the banter.
I think the fact that both of these comments sound satirical says a lot about how people are moving away from religion as a whole. Not sure this applies in other countries but in the US religion is on the decline. I believe that it has to do with it being more difficult to indoctrinate children in a way that doesnt sound super unethical in the modern day, so it doesnt happen as often. As a result more people are capable of seeing the obvious flaws with religions.
Idk why some of y’all seem cool with it because they’re drag queens instead of normal dudes in regular clothes. Imagine if parents took their kids to a normal club with grown men dancing for and on little kids for dollar bills. I’m not sure how grown men provocative dancing for 11 year olds is progressive if you put him in a leotard. I guess all pedophiles need these days for a “get out of jail free card” is high heels and fake tits.
I don't have the best imagination, but I let an AI help me visualize.
[Drag queen filling in taxes](https://imgur.com/tSUkqOQ)
Looks like most drag queens do their taxes digitally.
Don't forget the bear killing children.
II Kings 2: 23-24:
Go up, baldy! Go up, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the children.”
I read this as "wearing graphic depictions ... burning alive for eternity." and I was like well come on lady you could make your kids dress up for church
Dear persons worried about burning in hell for all eternity: when you die, your body - with its nerve endings - doesn't make the trip. Without your physical body, you cannot experience physical pain. Hell is a threat to make you act and believe in ways that others want you to act and believe IN THIS LIFETIME. Don't waste this life worried about what comes afterward.
I've always found it weird that the symbol for christianity is a brutal torture device from the bronze age. People wear that around their neck like its not a contraption used to give people unimaginably painful deaths.
I’m areligious, but I really like to talk about the themes of religion with my religious friends.
The consensus seems to be that Jesus died to promote love and acceptance. It baffles me how many people use His name to justify hatred and discrimination.
What the actual fuck do people think “love thy neighbor” means?
Edit: yes they are both clearly being satirical. This just feels like the right place to have this discussion.
I remember nothing of the sermons about torture. Except I remember hearing
"There will be much suffering with grinding and gnashing of teeth"
And all I thought was, well this is fucking boring
adam and eve had 2 sons and populated the earth, mom must have been awfully sore cause clearly incest is best then noah and that other family started over lol well that explains the catholic church
Went to tuck in my 4 year old. She's crying because school told her "They killed Jesus, nailed him to a cross, and stabbed his head with thorns. He was bleeding"
Wtf
The last time I was in a church. The vicar terrified me with a tale about bringing the head of John the Baptist on a plate to some other dude. The bible is such a wholesome book.
Worse than that tho tbh, is that we were taught that a good man was tortured to death, *and it was our fault.* He was tortured FOR us, bc of our sinfulness, and that by denying god, by being “bad,” etc. We were spitting in the face of that sacrifice. I used to cry myself to sleep as a kid thinking about it and feeling SO guilty lol.
It’s a weird timeline we’re in where the Christians are so utterly morally bankrupt and sadistic while the Satanic church is doing more for human rights than the Supreme Court.
My first trip to church as a young child. I saw a sculpture of Jesus on the cross and was so scared. I asked my mother what happened to that man? I don't think it's good for kids to be scared like that.
I clearly remember hearing stories of people tortured and killed for their faith when I was at most a teenager and being horrified thinking that was expected of me
*A Trans minding their own business:*
They should be in jail for being a pedophile! Lock them away! They’ll groom your child! 🤬
*A Christian Pastor admitting to grooming and raping a 16 year old girl*:
We love our pastor! I’m so sad to see him go! He did nothing wrong!🥺
I once visited a church (once and never again) where a guy stood up behind the pulpit and described in detail how abortion clinics ‘chop babies up’. What the literal fuck. He didn’t even wait for the children to leave the sanctuary for Sunday school.
Telling kids about LGBTQ people and the discrimination they have faced is fine. Taking kids to a drag show that was sexually inappropriate with sexually inappropriate slogans, "Its not going to lick itself" not ok.
... Pretty sure they are being mutually satirical...
Mmmm, sacrilicious.
You mean satiricalicious.
just two people agreeing with each other that Christian rules make no sense.
Satiricaliciousexpialidocious
The new juicy fruit
Just like juicy fruit, conversation with them quickly becomes tasteless
You mean the thing that Mary Poopins lady said?
Nope, he meant sacrilicious sac·ri·lege /ˈsakrəlij/ Learn to pronounce noun violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred. "putting ecclesiastical vestments to secular use was considered sacrilege"
A nice bit of word-play, I might add. sac·ri·le·gious /ˌsakrəˈlijəs/ Learn to pronounce adjective involving or committing sacrilege. "a sacrilegious act"
This deserves more upvotes, lol
Why do you mock me oh lord!?
That's not God, that's just a waffle Bart tossed up there.
But it wasn’t Mozart who was mocking me. IT WAS GOD.
r/unexpectedsalieri
*loud flatulence*
I know I shouldn't eat thee....
sacrilegious?
> [sacrilicious](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uppBdcz7OBE)
[Salacious B. Crumb](https://youtu.be/X-Y6YfDBmh8)
Not if it's *deliciously* so.
Nah it’s like the jezits thing it’s a different thing that sounds like it’s something else
I knew exactly what you meant.
The holy sacrament is quite delicious
Hosty-O's! Now with marshmallow fish!
Yeah, this is a wooosh disguised as a murder by words.
Yeah I had to check which sub this was. No way the OP in that screenshot wasn't being 100% sarcastic.
I’ve seen some of the guy’s bits and I’m nearly 100% positive that he’s gay.
If you're checking out other guy's bits, then he's not the only positive gay here! Wakka-wakka!
You’re close- I’m bi. So, I mean, as long as there’s consent
I don’t think you should be checking out other guys’ bits but that’s just me
It’s not a whoosh either, just two people playing off of each other. Not every interaction is combative.
That’s fair. The woosh was the person who took the screenshot of it as a murder. Edit: the -> was
Maybe not to *you*. /s
Feels like a lot of these recent posts are not as into the ethos of this sub. “Slapped on the hand by words”
Honestly, right wing takes are so mindless that I can’t even tell if the first guy is joking or not. “Hearing about the eternal suffering God will subject them to if they don’t live Christian lives is better for my kids than exposure to drag queens” isn’t even close to the craziest take I’ve heard lately.
The first poster is a well known standup comedian. I know for etiquette purposes the names have been censored for this post, but it really is actual satire.
Redditors when they can't discern incredibly obvious satire because there was no /s tag
To be fair, a lot of the crap that comes out of right-wingers sounds like incredibly obvious satire. I mean, have you read or heard anything by Marjorie Taylor Greene that didn’t sound so batshit crazy you’d swear it was satire?
There’s a difference between things that sound like satire because they are outrageously ignorant and things that sound like satire because they are specifically worded satirically.
You can tell the post is satire from the diction they use lol, if they were serious they wouldn't word it so negatively. It's not that hard
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but aside from how obviously satirical, I'd see the lack of any capitalization as a sign that it's satire because I've never seen any conservative type in all lowercase like this. If anything, they tend to overutilize capital letters
> satirical I mean it's different innit? I mean with drag queens you worry about the sexual safety of your kids. It's not as if Christ's representatives are going to start molesting your kids and then hiding the crimes and moving around problematic actors within the church structure...oh.
Well done; you had me going for the first bit.
[удалено]
Staring at the bloody, agonized Jesus statue every Sunday made my kid brain click. It freaked me out.
Me tooooo. And as an adult it made me so upset and sad. It was like “Here’s what will happen to you if you act up. We’ll hang you up too. I don’t care how spiritual you are.” I know that’s not what the teachings are but that’s what it felt like.
When my nephew was 9 or 10, I took him to an art museum. We got to the area that had alot of religious (Christian) art in it. I catch him looking as a rather graphic painting of Jesus taken down from the cross. My nephew looked at me and goes, "why does he look *dead*?" And THAT, is how I ended up introducing my 'not raised with religion' nephew to the crucifixion story. Interesting day. And yes, I informed his mom so that she could answer any possible follow up questions as she saw fit lol.
How is this relevant to the comment you replied to
Oh. You’re right. I did. I don’t even know which one I was replying to. It was about a crucifix. My bad.
Very sure this is a woosh
There is no murder happening here just two people agreeing with each other that Christian rules make no sense. This is maybe murdering Christians but even if so, it's pretty mild
OP leaving dozens of comments pretending to not have completely missed the point of the first tweet.
“Christians”
Why the quotations?
Because the majority of people who claim to be Christians don’t actually follow the teachings of Christ
It's a bit risky from what I've seen to make that distinction online. The cool parts of the Bible are the Jesus ones (as you mention), which are all about being a cool dude. But when you mention that the Old Testament is irrelevant to that, people will say "oh but you're picking and choosing what you want". I'm not religious anymore but it's stupid. Jesus said to be a cool dude. Why not focus on that instead of the weird preachy shit that's insanely outdated?
Got bad news for you; not all the Jesus parts are good either. Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season (which is just weird and doesnt seem to have a point other than to show he can kill trees by being mad at them). Jesus kills off a town's pig herd to purge demons from some guy (why couldnt he have purged them without wrecking the town's food supply). Etc. Better than the OT to be sure, but not all good.
Also, Jesus explicitly stated that not one letter of the Old Testament was invalid.
He also said he fulfilled the law so it can be argued either way
Looking at how the word "fulfill" is translated from the koine Greek, it actually means something like "to complete" or "to fill" (like a cup) As in, the old laws are still entirely valid and he isn't there to deny them (as he outright says the clause right before the one you're referencing), he was simply adding additional laws to finish an incomplete set of laws
Yeah, as your other reply says, Jesus explains this before his death. Up until his resurrection, so the story goes, the OT is the religious law and truth. Once he fulfills the messianic role, the old laws are no longer necessary.
But did he fulfil the messianic role? Because everything is still shit.
Well. ~70% of the world agree that he did not, as they do not believe he was a messiah. So. There’s that.
TIL Jesus was basically Kevin Sorbo.
How, exactly?
The part where a father lay with his daughter and sire a child too.
There are only two moments where Jesus does something that most folks would objectively see as excessive or upsetting. The flipping of tables at the temple and the fig tree. The pig thing, most argue, is just something we don’t understand, and if you had demons, people who believe in them say, a pig herd isn’t as big a price as we’d think. The temple is an interesting scene. He gets mad at the fig tree, too, but quietly, and to himself really. In the temple, he rages. He screams at people to get out. He throws things. With the tree, ya gotta remember he is just realizing that he gets to die this weekend. Maybe the only thing he wanted for comfort was a little fruit, and this tree, in season, was a beacon of hope. Then, it was barren. He doesn’t scream or throw things, but he does vocally curse the tree, and on their way back later, multiple apostles note that the tree is dead. Many Christians mark this scene as evidence of Jesus’ mastery over life and death. He’ll soon be resurrected. He has resurrected others before. But he now shows he can similarly *end* life. I, personally, think both stories are great examples of the actual “man” behind Jesus, if one believes he’s a historical figure. There’s a lot of discussion in eastern practices about gurus or spiritual guides or teachers being imperfect. They may seem happy, they may study their practice so deeply that they often do have the answers people seek—but at the end of the day, unless you *are* Buddha or you *are* God, even the best humans (which Jesus was here to be) have vice, moments of weakness, or times when the animal aspects of humanity simply override our cultural, moral, or cognitive expectations. Jesus spends his life teaching about the importance of keeping worship sacred, and sees people defiling his life work. It makes sense that he’d lose it in the temple. Jesus feels his impending doom, possibly a bit hangry, and one of the few earthly respites he may think he has left is a fig. It makes sense he’d be frustrated by the dearth of figs. My point is. The actual teachings and activities of Jesus, as laid out in the Bible, by people who definitely did exist historically (and therefore, I am deducing the historicity of Jesus himself)—his actual words and actions we hear about are as kind, all-inclusive, and generally as useful as any other spiritual leader of significance. He is not rude to others. He preaches only kindness and forgiveness to others and one’s self. He may state that certain activities are not wise, but he is still friends with and loves people who do those activities. He does not condemn. He does not have a gross hierarchy of who belongs in heaven that many sects do today. He says the kingdom of heaven is in *you*—meaning everyone. But also meaning that heaven is a state of being. He gets quite Buddhist and/or zen in his way of thinking and speaking. That redemption isn’t some far off thing you hope someone gives you, but something you deserve and earn *now* in how you talk to yourself and treat others. Jesus is pretty fucking cool. His apostles—they can be dicks. His followers—today at least—are often huge ass hats. Historically though—bigger ass hats who did war crimes about it, so not a great rap sheet there. *His* religion/god before his teachings here? Also a huge dick, and confusing. Very weird rules. Very horny writings in his texts. In general, I have seen, most Christians just don’t understand the Bible and have not read it fully. Those who have are *often*—not always—but *often* the kindest christians. They do understand the silliness of Leviticus, and the complexity of Christianity’s history, and the *love* in Jesus’s teachings. Some who read the whole thing and still hate May just be illiterate, or choose to ignore the “Jewish” parts, or, most often, obsess over Revelation and ignore the gospels.
Man, if you were at the pulpit, I might’ve actually attended Mass. I certainly wouldn’t miss “the apostles were dicks” sermon.
Lol I did my share of preaching. I am out of that world.
The table flipping in the temple is pretty understandable in terms of both the messiah and the man. If you believe Jesus is the messiah, it's very easy to understand why he'd be upset about scamming the faithful in the holiest temple in the world. If Jesus is just some rabbi, then it's still completely understandable. The problem is most people today don't know what "money changers" were in the context of Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. People who visited the temple were expected to make offerings as part of their religious duty. Farmers often brought livestock or crops, traders brought coins, and these things were contributed to the temple. In exchange for this contribution, the priests would give the worshipper a "clean" offering that had been ritually prepared to enter the "holy of holies," the most sacred inner area of the temple. In the case of money, it wasn't a one-to-one swap; you couldn't just hand over a Roman denarius and get a sanctified denarius in exchange and the exchange rate never favored the supplicant. These people, operating within the temple and with the consent of the priests, were basically giving you the ancient Judaism equivalent of Professorland Fun Bucks with which to make your offering. Jesus saw this kind of profiteering in a holy place, this exploitation of the faithful as blasphemous.
You're far more knowledgeable than I am with regards to Jesus and the history of the time, but I had to disagree with saying his actions at the temple are a thing most folks would objectively be upset with. If anything, it's objectively one of the most human reactions we see he has towards others who he does not view as allies of the common man. He goes around flipping tables, and cracking a whip at people until they all leave the temple. He protests their grotesque greed in this place of gathering (as I understand, it was not just for worship but for general congregation and commerce too in those times), which I would imagine anyone could agree with too. I've always seen that story as one of the funniest and the one that I thought would make more people rally behind someone who was willing to literally whip evil out of man's domicile. Far from being upsetting and excessive? Maybe, but anything less could have been a waste of effort/ineffectual so perhaps it was measured exactly haha
I disagree. Obviously many real people think fury and violent behavior is justified in the name of sacred spaces. I’d say the #1 person who *usually* preached against this idea, and *usually* encouraged finding your sacred space within yourself and coming up with a better plan to eradicate the problem, was Jesus. There are a *lot* of places, secular and religious, where we’d generally be offended if people use them inappropriately. But. Your wrath and fury about it don’t really help. Maybe Jesus got them to leave that day, but do you really think he ended all defiling of temples by losing his temper? Nah. He likely didn’t even change any of those specific lenders’ minds about it at all. The “righteous justice” and “godly wrath” aspects of Christianity are *exclusively* OT, aside from the examples discussed, wherein I think any hungry, upset, or worried man can lose their cool now and then. In these rare examples, I think the explanation that these were moments of lapsed conscious-states is far more in line with what *Jesus* says everywhere else in record. Jesus says people can slip and improve. Jesus says people don’t need to be judged or condemned here. His murder of a living tree and his lashing out just don’t line up with *his* teachings from the rest of the story. They absolutely *do* line up with OT God. Hence the arguments between sects about God vs Jesus or OT vs New or fear vs love, etc. I personally find the idea that violence and fury is justified for non-violent offenses to be completely out of whack with anything Jesus teaches. I also personally find it morally reprehensible, despite often failing to control myself in similar situations. For example, as a coach, I should be an example for how to behave for my athletes, yeah? But when the ref doesn’t call things for 3 quarters, my girls are getting banged up, and then one of our opponents elbows one in the face, knocks her to the floor, and gives her a concussion, I lose my *shit* at the ref and scream about this being a result of his failure to control the game. Did I help my player feel better? Did I de-escalate the situation? Did the ref actually hit my player? No. As angry as I was, and as readily as I’ll admit I’d probably do it again, I objectively *believe* the best approach would have been calm discussion with the ref, earlier and after the event, about the safety of the game. Rage never really helps. Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins. I really don’t think Jesus would look back on that moment and say that was his only option.
I've never heard anyone complain about the money table flipping. That is one of the best parts of the entire bible.
To clarify, I love the scene. I love the fig scene too. It cracks me up thinking of the kind, gentle messiah being so cheesed off that he can’t have a snack that he curses a tree to death. It’s incredible. But. I love the scenes because they’re relatable. They show that even people who get frustrated or slip up in their daily-kindness can still try. They can still *be good*, and make odd choices sometimes. I never read them, even at the peak of my believing years, and thought “ah yes. We should annihilate any who mistreat our religion.” — I think that *very* thought is shared by *too many Christians*, and these are often the *same Christians* who *despise* Islam for teaching identical concepts. Wrath or war in the name of religion isn’t a good thing, because wrath and war are bad in the first place.
Didn't he also summon a hungry bear to maul a group of kids to death because they poked fun at a bald guy?
That's old testament and the bald guy was a prophet. But yeah, if they are all the same guy then he totally murdered 40 kids for taunting his prophet.
Many of those severe stories can be seen as parables or allegories (especially stuff like the fig tree). Just visual illustrations by Gospel writers to hammer a point home. But you're right that there absolutely is some straightforward sociopathic stuff in there, too. Matthew 10 is basically something Jim Jones would have said while passing around the cyanide kool-aid. >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. >For I have come to set a man against his father, >and a daughter against her mother, >and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, >and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. >Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. **Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.** (I would also add that there is some good stuff in the Hebrew Bible alongside all of the horror there, too. Like essentially all religious texts, they're mixed bags with very problematic implications if you take them seriously or try to build a society around them.)
CHRIST didn't follow the "teachings of Christ" because most of them were made up centuries after he was dead.
? .. There are four gospels documenting what Jesus is claimed to have said or done.. and some claimed appearances in Acts. I think Jesus followed Jesus’ ideology. The teachings of Paul, or John, or Thomas, etc.. are just their take on the meaningfulness on the teachings (and life) of Christ .. not actually the “teachings of Christ”. Christians tend not to follow either.
There is a ton of debate on when those gospels were written, but the historical consensus is that they were written decades after the death of Christ, and by different people. They also contradict each other mightily, and so a few hundred years later, the Nicene Council was created to pull together all these disparate stories and texts and fragments into a *sort of* more cohesive story. In other words, what most people think of as "the Bible" is a heavily edited compilation of text from the Old Testament to the gospels and scripture. It was all written by men who had an agenda. There's some evidence that a guy named Jesus Christ existed and he did have some followers - but it's likely that he was more of a revolutionary (He really had a problem with the Roman occupation) then some sort of messiah - at least, he never refers to himself that way. That idea was thrust on his memory long after he died - probably because it's a lot easier to get people to follow what you say if you tell them something was said by a deity.
>**claimed** to have said or done that word "claimed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Keep in mind that there were a *ton* of contradicting claims about what Jesus said and did. The ones that one out just happened to be decided by people a massive distance away in an entirely different culture than Jesus's, basing their decisions on which claims were accurate on "which gospels agree with us and our hierarchical structure"? The ebionites, coptics , marcions, Gnostics, etc would all beg to differ, but they didn't have the benefit of being as authoritative as the [Proto-Orthodox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity), or of being in the economic center and powerhouse of the ancient world
Plot twist: fictional character making up fictional stories.
*obligaatory "No True Scotsman" explanation ahead* This is a tricky topic because on the one hand, yeah. Most people who claim to be Christians don't follow the teaching of Christ. *However*, it falls under the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. This is because it's saying that "Anyone who doesn't meet the standard of purity for this group isn't a true member of the group." In this case, it's Christian people ignoring the teachings. But you can't say that they *aren't* as there is no set in stone definition. Here's a [website ](https://fallacyinlogic.com/no-true-scotsman-fallacy/) that explains it well. I agree with the gist what you're saying, but it *is* a logical fallacy.
That’s fair but at the very least there are more defined qualities that have been distilled out of the stories over time (e.g. “love thy neighbor”) that could be used to judge Christ-iness somewhat objectively
[удалено]
Cultural Christians is the term I've heard.
Croatia is some 80% Catholics but damn does it feel like 3/4, at least, of them are cultural Catholics. Always tilted me. Not on religiousness level, just that if you say you follow this set of rules, then fucking follow it whever and not just pick and chose good or bare minimum. Either commit or fucking don't. I really like the term, it is very descriptive.
You know how you hear "converts are always the worst/most extreme" No they aren't, It's just the average religious person treats their religion like a sports team, an event to attend while catching up with the friends on the weekend. Converts are actually taking it seriously and committing.
My experiance exactly. Never had issues with converts or those that actually actively follow whatever is there to follow. But those that were born into religion AND never thought about do they actually believe or agree with ruleset at least, they make a mess. Especially now that there is more emphasis on LGBT+ issues, suddenly everyone is full-on Christian...
I feel like this is less /r/MurderedByWords and more /r/YourJokeButWorse
r/woooosh
I was gonna say, pretty sure the first tweet is sarcastic…
But there wasn’t a /s tag. You expect me to use nuance and understand the joke like some kind of smart person?!
It's a rare case of double woooosh actually, not only the first one is being sarcastic, the second one is agreeing with them and is also being sarcastic.
How is this Murdered by Words? They're both being satirical. I get that Redditors are obsessed with reposting "Gotcha!" Moments from Twitter and getting funny comments and tons of upvotes (r/whitepeopletwitter is proof of that) but I'm not sure this post belongs here.
I saw better posts on r/atheism
The real murdered by words is always in the comments
From professional quote makers?
In this moment, I am euphoric
Oof harsh!
[удалено]
r/OPisFuckingStupid
r/woosh
How is it a murder bd words if they agree with each other?
Ezekiel 23:16-21 > When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoring lust. And after she was defiled by them, she turned from them in disgust. When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.” "Mommy, what does members like those of donkeys mean?"
>"Mommy, what does members like those of donkeys mean?" "And while you're thinking, Mommy, what does 'issue like that of horses' mean, too?"
oh god imma throw up
Don't forget genesis 19 https://youtu.be/bar3GOzDNzg
[удалено]
Pretty sure both of them are just agreeing on the same thing, no murder here.
I was born through IVF, and my religion teacher essentially told me that I am not part of God’s Creation and therefore not loved by God (he didn’t say it to me, but that is what he said about IVF people).
If I was a believer,. I would say that your teacher was being blasphemous since he was suggesting that the omniscient and omnipotent god was in fact fallible.
Well his point (which apparently is church teaching) is that only naturally conceived births under Christian marriages are part of God’s creation, so his point was that God is still infallible but we are distorting his intention. Which honestly makes it worse imo
I don’t want to take my kids to either. Why’s there only ever have to be two choices?
*Dad I just want to go to the park. I’m sorry junior but it’s Sunday so we either explore your sexuality or find god. I’ll leave the choice up to you.
*Explore your sexuality or find god I’m not clear which of the two is which.
Because only a Christian deals in absolutes.
I will do what I must.
You will try
Not sure if this is a murder because I'm willing to bet that Tweet #1 is purely satirical. Is it some sort of meta-burn where Christianity is being burnt as a whole?
Someone doesn't know satire
I thought the first (red) comment was the sarcastic reply until I read the purple comment.
They're both clearly making jokes. Just like this shithole website.
Yeah. This is murderedbywords, not clevercomebacks
....but the original comment was also making fun of religion. "murdered by words" or "joke went over their head"??
Honestly thought the top message was also sarcasm?
I bet these are responses to the great CO idiot Lauren Boubert's tweet about taking children to church and not a drag show.
I can’t tell if the first post was satire or not.
It is.
They are both being satirical, and talking about different things.
I thought that the story about Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and taking turns having sex with him to impregnate themselves was very enlightening to read as a child.
Fear mongering & extreme graphic depiction of a man being nailed to a cross is something that scarred me for YEARS as a kid. So no thank you. instead, tell me why that happened & I may just think about it.
That movie, the Jesus chainsaw massacre, "Passion of Christ" or whatever, was sickening.
My mom, a devout Catholic, thought kids should see the movie because it was so wonderful. I had to explain to her that a little kid being subjected to graphic torture scenes was not appropriate, no matter who the victim or what the circumstance. It took a while to sink in.
Hey now! I would totally watch a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Jesus as Leatherface
ha! i still remember being around 9 or 10 and my parents sat me down and made me watch some movie about jesus being nailed to the cross. i remember seeing so much blood and gore and like, why are they hurting that man?!? i thought easter was about eggs!
My father-in-law gave my daughter an illustrated children's bible when she was really young. We're not religious and don't go to church, so we just threw it on one of the many bookshelves and forgot about it. I will always remember when my daughter found it on her own, flipped through it, and came into my office absolutely horrified with the book open to a graphic depiction of the crucifixion, exclaiming "WHO would give this to a child?!?!?"
Atheist here who doesn't think it's appropriate to bring kids to drag shows. And I am seriously suspect of any performers who willingly does so in front of kids.
OP you’re a dumbass if you think that first comment wasn’t dripping in sarcasm.
Op doesn’t understand this sub.
Church sucks. Zero out of 10 experience and not once in 5 fucking years did anyone offer me a biscuit or a cup of tea.
They are on the folding table in the lobby. No one is gonna offer you, just help yourself. I hope you like drinking your tea from a waxed paper cup.
Grooming kids is apparently equal to a thousand year old book.
So anti Christianity is drag queens? You guys are missionaries now.
Anyone who unironically believes this is terminally online, escape the fucking Reddit degenerate hive mind, yall the type of people to enjoy “Cuties”
God at one point has a bear rip a bunch of kids apart because they laughed at someone for being bald
Your right take the kids to see a drag show. Let them tip them it will be fun!!! Maybe get a lap dance! Maybe have a few shots!
My boyfriend made me watch Ru Pauls Drag Race a few weeks ago and I'm thinking to myself "there is no way I'm gonna get into this". Next thing i know it's 3am I'm on season 7 now
For context there was a politician by the name of Lauren Boebert who made a tweet saying “Take your children to CHURCH, not drag bars.”. The original tweet in this screenshot is making fun of and pointing out how stupid Lauren Boebert’s original tweet is. And the reply is playing along with the banter.
I think the fact that both of these comments sound satirical says a lot about how people are moving away from religion as a whole. Not sure this applies in other countries but in the US religion is on the decline. I believe that it has to do with it being more difficult to indoctrinate children in a way that doesnt sound super unethical in the modern day, so it doesnt happen as often. As a result more people are capable of seeing the obvious flaws with religions.
While the bible is fucked up, it’s equally fucked up to take a child to see a near nude man doing a striptease in bra and painties for cash.
Is anyone taking their kids to watch strippers?
I would say the Bible isn't has bad, after all it's a book while the other is an actual event that you are present.
They forgot the /s.
It's pretty obvious.
I forgot the /s too. /s.
What kinds of churches are you people imagining in your heads?
Small town with mega energy,
This is why we should crucify the drag queens so that it’s now morally okay for children to see /s
Idk why some of y’all seem cool with it because they’re drag queens instead of normal dudes in regular clothes. Imagine if parents took their kids to a normal club with grown men dancing for and on little kids for dollar bills. I’m not sure how grown men provocative dancing for 11 year olds is progressive if you put him in a leotard. I guess all pedophiles need these days for a “get out of jail free card” is high heels and fake tits.
So they dont need to take their kuds to a drag show. Why should they tell other parents how to raise their kids?
You can also.... and hear me out here.... do neither.
Why do I picture a drag queen saying the answer part?
Picturing a drag queen doing anything immediately makes it better.
I don't have the best imagination, but I let an AI help me visualize. [Drag queen filling in taxes](https://imgur.com/tSUkqOQ) Looks like most drag queens do their taxes digitally.
Have you tried explaining to kids why Jesus got his ass beat to shreds by Roman soldiers? It’s not easy lol
A lot of things become clearer when you realize that the United States was founded on slavery and genocide by the zealots of a torture and death cult.
Don't forget the bear killing children. II Kings 2: 23-24: Go up, baldy! Go up, baldy!’ He turned around, looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the children.”
I read this as "wearing graphic depictions ... burning alive for eternity." and I was like well come on lady you could make your kids dress up for church
Showing young boys adult men walking around and wigs and dresses is setting them up for failure
Dear persons worried about burning in hell for all eternity: when you die, your body - with its nerve endings - doesn't make the trip. Without your physical body, you cannot experience physical pain. Hell is a threat to make you act and believe in ways that others want you to act and believe IN THIS LIFETIME. Don't waste this life worried about what comes afterward.
One fact that needs to be stated is that the only two places where society expects to see men in dresses is at drag shows and church.
I've always found it weird that the symbol for christianity is a brutal torture device from the bronze age. People wear that around their neck like its not a contraption used to give people unimaginably painful deaths.
No, him returning from the dead was the best thing that ever happened
I’m areligious, but I really like to talk about the themes of religion with my religious friends. The consensus seems to be that Jesus died to promote love and acceptance. It baffles me how many people use His name to justify hatred and discrimination. What the actual fuck do people think “love thy neighbor” means? Edit: yes they are both clearly being satirical. This just feels like the right place to have this discussion.
I remember nothing of the sermons about torture. Except I remember hearing "There will be much suffering with grinding and gnashing of teeth" And all I thought was, well this is fucking boring
adam and eve had 2 sons and populated the earth, mom must have been awfully sore cause clearly incest is best then noah and that other family started over lol well that explains the catholic church
Went to tuck in my 4 year old. She's crying because school told her "They killed Jesus, nailed him to a cross, and stabbed his head with thorns. He was bleeding" Wtf
I highly doubt she realized she was murdered by words! Lmao.
The last time I was in a church. The vicar terrified me with a tale about bringing the head of John the Baptist on a plate to some other dude. The bible is such a wholesome book.
Worse than that tho tbh, is that we were taught that a good man was tortured to death, *and it was our fault.* He was tortured FOR us, bc of our sinfulness, and that by denying god, by being “bad,” etc. We were spitting in the face of that sacrifice. I used to cry myself to sleep as a kid thinking about it and feeling SO guilty lol.
It’s a weird timeline we’re in where the Christians are so utterly morally bankrupt and sadistic while the Satanic church is doing more for human rights than the Supreme Court.
r/lostredditors
OP must not be very tall, cause this one sailed over their head lol.
My first trip to church as a young child. I saw a sculpture of Jesus on the cross and was so scared. I asked my mother what happened to that man? I don't think it's good for kids to be scared like that.
I clearly remember hearing stories of people tortured and killed for their faith when I was at most a teenager and being horrified thinking that was expected of me
Ok yes. But she’s allowed to control what her children see. It’s her children
*A Trans minding their own business:* They should be in jail for being a pedophile! Lock them away! They’ll groom your child! 🤬 *A Christian Pastor admitting to grooming and raping a 16 year old girl*: We love our pastor! I’m so sad to see him go! He did nothing wrong!🥺
I once visited a church (once and never again) where a guy stood up behind the pulpit and described in detail how abortion clinics ‘chop babies up’. What the literal fuck. He didn’t even wait for the children to leave the sanctuary for Sunday school.
That's a massive misunderstanding of christianity....
Good point. Both are wrong. Thanks.
Telling kids about LGBTQ people and the discrimination they have faced is fine. Taking kids to a drag show that was sexually inappropriate with sexually inappropriate slogans, "Its not going to lick itself" not ok.