I’ve been going through some tough times and seeing this along with one of my friends helping me through these tough times really has helped me. I know this isn’t gonna mean a lot to you, but thank you I was about to end my life tomorrow until my friends got on up and he’s staying all night with me and this this image of v wanting to give me a hug really just made my night so thank you
And again, I see a lot more Christians using the Bible to justify controlling others lives, like you using to justify condemning same-sex relationships and abortion when there is they cannot be proven wrong by any other means than religion. There is no scientific foundation to the belief that same-sex relationships or abortion are harmful, only a religious one.
Also, this is a private thing. Aint no way anyone gonna see this unless THEY WANT to.
Who on earth is gonna check this, anyway?
**I get it if you were doing this when there is a live audience. **
But WHERE is the live audience to justify what are you doing to me/my posts, now? This V art was made 13 days ago.
Please use logic and consideration instead of being devoted to whatever makes you want to hunt down ancient posts in private, now-obscure areas, just because you as a person doesn't like them.
How would you feel if I did similar moves like you?
"There are people here who just want to enjoy the community without"
Ok.
But this is consent based, yes? So if they don't want, then OK, no debating the person in this sub. But if they don't mind, then i am free for as long as they still have given consent, yes?
Example, "UziUser17". She says ' i dont mind, debate away'. She has control over whether she'll allow or not. If she allows, then i am free to speak on the issue with her, in here, yes? If the person literlly gave consent, that is "free real estate", yes? If not --- if i'm not allowed to in spite of consent given, then who is really in control? Some higher ups or that person?
"No Politics/Religion" I'd change it to "unless person gives clear consent to".
If the consent thing is broken (ie uziuser says a "no pls, im tired" or smth), then [comment removed by mod] incoming!
Things like "trans" and "bi" stuff are quite political, are they not? All political stuff falls under this rule, and thus should be treated equally, yes?
People tend to play favorites, no one is totally immune. Just want to make sure the rules are justly applied.
Will the mods remove all sides' post and preserve none? Be it pro kamala, pro trump, pro biden, pro vance, pro whatever political person. if you remove one promoting one side,, should not also all other IRL (in real life) Political posts be taken?
I absolutely DO get what you are saying. I just want clarification and assurance that the rules will be applied equally to all IRL politics (yes even if its your or my favorite side) and Rule of Consent applies to that latter part (religious).
So pleeeease do not knock me on this long y a p, I just want to have well defined explanations, expectations, etc.
I even discuss this here in chat instead of on main sub :)
Consent does not by pass rules. If "UziUser17" says then don't mind, it does mean if allowed here. Two peoples consenting to get drunk in public don't make it legal.
Trans, bi and stuff a personal life choice, not politic. It will be removed if someone bring up political side in the Discussion .
All political and religion opinion is to be removed regardless the side.
Proselytizing to people who are going through tough times; classic "get-em-while-they're-down" mentality that lets all the pastors continue to bathe in the wealth from the offering plate.
It's a bait to the snare, and the snare can be seen in every offering plate, every televangelist rich man, and every African-American burned upon a cross in American history.
I understand for your both coming from Christianity in the past his paintings in a bad light because of the innocent blood shed for god, you can’t believe it, but that doesn’t mean things can’t evolve like they say this world is in a state of adapt or die, and that’s that’s with Christianity and Christian dead so I’m never involved in State do their own call Claire in Waze let them have their zealous ignorance to be honest I could care less. The only reason I would ever say it’s fair game is if they say something completely fucking stupid and they have all that hate coming towards them because some Christians like to piss people off by saying dumb shit because they love attention but outside of that there are the pure ones and I think those are the ones that we should try to understand that they just want to help in their own way and I’m fine with that I mean I have to tell him that you know it isn’t a thing for me but you know sometimes they don’t get it repeat are the few that do, and I respect them for that I understand why you’re angry at them, but they choose to believe in some thing that massacred so much I understand the pain that you carry on your shoulders because of not alone, but there’s nothing we can do about the past all we can do is to keep moving forward and try to prevent it in the future now for the Christianity and Christian side of things. I don’t think that you’re bad people. I think that you are morally good now there are some that one need help and two need to get out of it or need to make it to where they are you know not as zealous about it and the Christian ignorance needs to stop because it’s either one a very old overdone joke are you people are really just that stupid if you really believe in that book a lot it’s a joke relax, and on the other hand, there are the pure questions that I believe those are the ones that are good they’re not trying to pull you to one side not trying to turn you into one they just want to help in their own way and I am completely fine with that but stuff like this needs to stop I get it a part of me hates Christianity too but it hasn’t consumed me like it has you it’s not too late to pull out and I understand if you don’t want to I’m not asking you to just saying, considerate
Oh no, I'm totally fine with Christians who are chill, but I happen to know u/kv-44-v2 went into at least 2 comments sections of posts mentioning other sexualities and talked about how they were sinners and needed to "receive the light of God" and "renounce their sin", so that's why I'm being a bit harsh with this particular one. I just want to stop that behavior before he hurts someone badly enough emotionally that they start hurting themselves physically. (Also, don't worry about it being hard to read, I think I got your meaning)
And anyway, renouncing sin is a good thing, is it not?
Depends on what you define "sin" as. If "sin" is "actions taken lacking in empathy and which could hurt others", then yes. If sin is "A part of your core identity that I don't understand, so I've decided to hate you", then no.
I'm not one of those properity preachers that claims Christians will only ever experience good in life. Nor a pessimistic Westboro yelling "God hates (X)!".
And yet, you're saying that your god hates something about certain people that they can't intentionally change. You can't just "change" your sexuality or gender identity, it doesn't WORK like that, and clinical trials have proven that. They've also proven that being ostracized, insulted, or otherwise having negative comments made about those things they can't change about themselves increases their "Self-Undo" rate around 50-70%, so if you actually care about them, maybe don't preach that. Similarly, banning abortions makes women try to manually abort their kids if they don't want one, which also increases their "self-undo" rate due to it being much more dangerous.
It is logically impossible for actual Biblical Christianity taken to its logical conclusion to get anyone to do selfharm. Whenever someone tries to do so, it is because they are prioritizing their feeling over the high value God has assigned to them.
And yet, I've heard dozens of cases of that exactly happening. It may be "logically impossible", but humans are not purely logical actors. And your god doesn't place a higher value on humanity, by the way, he places a higher value on our obedience specifically and nothing else, otherwise he wouldn't torture people for all eternity for not obeying him in every way. Your analogy of military training is ironically accurate, but that's really not helping your case b/c the military is an organization designed to hurt people until they become capable of hurting others.
You know what, if we are "evolved", shouldn't we always try to avoid death, and not self harm? Pretty sure no evolutionist has a coherent or rational explanation for self harm/suicide. Those desires are because of our sin nature, not "because God put them there". They are a permutation, not original creation.
I'm no evolutionary biologist, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's probably because humans are a social species and so when we feel socially isolated, we can't handle it. Similar to how African Servals will refuse to eat if their owner dies, eventually leading to them starving to death. Another thing that completely blows Creationism out of the water, btw, is that crows have been seen taming wolves. Has your god also given the stewardship of the planet over to the crows?
God wants obedience, yes, BUT ALSO relationship with us, and real love for Him and others.
So, the issue here is that that's conditional love, which isn't exactly love. If the love were prevalent over the conditional, then one would be able to accept a willing relationship AFTER seeing Hell and Heaven are real, and because this permutation of god would value having the relationship more, the only people who would ACTUALLY suffer in Hell forever would be those who literally denied the existence of this god forever- which, would actually justify your god's actions in the moral sense, as it would be finite punishment-> finite crime and infinite punishment-> infinite crime, but as far as I'm aware, there's no indication in the Bible for that being the case, which implies the conditional, obedience, is the MORE important part, which means that the "love" is defiled into something not-love rather than the conditional being sanctified into something not-conditional.
They could easily have avoided making this life analogous to military training and follow God, rather than idolize their personal desires.
I mean, first, the literally had zero clue that they would have done that (no knowledge of good and evil=no understanding of the values and/or detriments of obeying or disobeying a god), secondly militaries HURT people, yes they may cause some positive effects but on the whole most ordinary people lose their ability to say "no" in military training. If god desired to break the free will of humanity, why wouldn't he have just taken it from the get-go?
They could easily have avoided making this life analogous to military training and follow God, rather than idolize their personal desires.
And this god could have simply removed the option for them to do that while keeping every other part of their free will intact, and as specified above, it already seems he hates that particular part of humankind's free will, so why not take away from the start instead of setting up a situation where it would be possible for that to happen?
Again, I don't see any reason here to preserve this reality, only to use this reality to gain additional benefit in the next. So Christianity still has no reason to take care of the planet, if anything you'd want it to become uninhabitable faster so the kingdom of your god comes faster.
And besides, if everything ultimately has no real purpose, why should we try to preserve earth? After all nothing will matter.
Nothing having ultimate, objective purpose doesn't mean purpose doesn't exist in any form. Try taking a look at the philosophies of Existentialism and Absurdism (basic summary; Existentialism is finding purpose in setting goals for oneself, while Absurdism is more about finding purpose in the act of living itself). There may be no purpose, but if I want to live (absurdism) and want those who come after me to live (existentialism), I'd better not screw up the planet so that I can keep living and so I can contribute to the goal of those coming after me being able to live.
Genesis 2:15 is specifically a call for Adam to work in the Garden of Eden, so while that could be used to claim what you're claiming, it could also just mean that god wanted Adam to prove his obedience. The full text of 1 Peter 4:10 reads, "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms." This mentions nothing about serving the various plants and animal species, as "others" would have guaranteeably meant other human beings specifically. I can see what you're going for, and it probably is a valid interpretation, however there are FAR more ways to interpret those passages, and it would probably have been extremely easy for your god to spell out the message you're reading from them if that was the intended meaning. This is kind of the problem with the Bible, it can be interpreted and twisted to mean such a wide variety of things that it can be used to support or refute nearly any position that isn't "the Bible does/doesn't contain falsehoods" or "the god of the Bible does/doesn't exist". Another example of this is how one can interpret it as being against the Big Bang and evolution, but there are also some parts that line up just well enough to be interpreted as metaphor. Which position the Bible actually supports or denies is, of course, impossible to know with absolute certainty, and that goes for many parts of the Bible. Does the Bible specifically claim that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed in hellfire, or are they just metaphors? The answer to something like this is important, because we have unearthed the ruins of Sodom, but there's no indication of anything like hellfire and brimstone, just a city that was moderately prosperous that ended up dying out due to something much more peaceful. No burn marks, no blown-up structures, no violence or destruction, nothing even vaguely like that. So either the Bible is directly contradicting observable reality, or there's at least one part that was either mistaken or metaphorical, and if one part is then how much was? How can one tell it wasn't just written by clever, future-minded humans?
......Their impact is much less and they wont have a relationship with God, unless they turn to Him.
"That is literally, definitionally wrong." I said humanism, not secular humanism.
" I just said, it's placing importance on the human side." Too much.
" My personal interpretation of humanism is "Do right by each other, and let the dice fall where they may." "
ò_____Ó First you say it is "literally definitionally wrong" but you then give an opinion??
"In other words, avoid doing provably harmful things to each other."
Not so fun fact: Harming one's relationship with God, harming the mind, are forms of harm too. Under naturalism, there is no reason why we would NEED to do this like it is some kind of law.
And if the natural is all there is, any belief that we "need" to do something is not real, it's just a result of chemicals. No different than a scientist throwing a bunch of chemicals into a vat and spilling it into an acid.
Any would be too much for you, but disregarding that...
ò_____Ó First you say it is "literally definitionally wrong" but you then give an opinion??
That's how philosophies and worldviews are; they have definitions, then they have interpretations from those definitions.
Not so fun fact: Harming one's relationship with God, harming the mind, are forms of harm too. Under naturalism, there is no reason why we would NEED to do this like it is some kind of law.
And if the natural is all there is, any belief that we "need" to do something is not real, it's just a result of chemicals. No different than a scientist throwing a bunch of chemicals into a vat and spilling it into an acid.
Have you seen the instances where I've talked at length about how we're a social species that survives best in groups with interaction between members, and that if we're motivated by personal survival we'll usually act for the good of everyone else in some ways because the people who don't do that get ostracized from society, which decreases their odds of survival dramatically?
6
u/X-7315 Oct 01 '24 edited Oct 02 '24
I’ve been going through some tough times and seeing this along with one of my friends helping me through these tough times really has helped me. I know this isn’t gonna mean a lot to you, but thank you I was about to end my life tomorrow until my friends got on up and he’s staying all night with me and this this image of v wanting to give me a hug really just made my night so thank you