Safeguard ,
@Safeguard@beehaw.org avatar

We need a new corona that targets christo-fascists…

mozz ,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Here's what I don't get: In a lot of churches, isn't the guy standing up at front supposed to be telling you literally the word of God? Like God's anointed representative on earth? I know that's how it's supposed to work for the pope; like it's officially supposed to be absolutely impossible for the pope to ever be wrong in any statements about anything. Shouldn't this seem to the church goers like finding out that your doctor actually doesn't have a medical degree? Or like he thinks your heart is in your leg or something? It seems like "oops I made a mistake, I definitely know it's in the chest now, we all live and learn sometimes" should not by any means be the end of that conversation.

t3rmit3 , (edited )

No. In Catholicism, when a Pope makes official rulings on matters of Catholic doctrine it is supposed to be infallible. It also must be explicitly invoked as ex cathedra, meaning “from the chair”, as applying to all Catholics. The last time that happened was in 1950, with a doctrinal ruling on the nature of the Assumption of Mary. It also cannot be a new doctrine, only a ruling on the nature of an existing one, so it’s meant to be sort of akin to a SCOTUS ruling interpreting a law, rather than being an executive order.

In Protestant and other Reformation-derived denominations (e.g. Evangelicals) Pastors are not supposed to be authoritative or infallible. They just often present themselves that way.

mozz ,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Fair point

spider , (edited )

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • jarfil ,
    @jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

    Let’s not use the eugenics terminology.

    spider , (edited )

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • jarfil ,
    @jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

    There is a nice warning ⚠️ on that page, may want to check the Wikipedia to learn more.

    spider , (edited )

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • jarfil ,
    @jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

    It applies to both. The word is a neologism created specifically for an eugenic purpose, using it as an insult doesn’t change its meaning.

    ieatpillowtags ,

    It was a neologism associated with the eugenics movement (“created specifically for” appears to be editorializing on your part), more than 100 years ago. The word has LONG since lost any connection with that meaning, with the sole exception of virtue signaling like yours.

    ApeNo1 ,

    In other words this creep has thought about raping women who are wearing shorts. Authorities should be putting him on a watch list.

    zcd ,

    This guy is super likely to be a rapist

    DogPeePoo ,

    This guy is super likely to get raped if he ever wears shorts again

    zcd ,

    If he dresses like that he’s asking for it

    DogPeePoo ,

    Especially if he’s wearing red underwear

    ThatFembyWho ,

    I mean, if God lets it happen, it was meant to be

    DogPeePoo , (edited )

    The Lord doth work in mysterious, rapey ways

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines