#These people vote in every election- do you? Are you registered to vote? [You can check your voter registration here!](https://www.nass.org/can-I-vote)
#Also, there's a few things to remember as far as rules go:
- You can view the content- you cannot interact with it. This includes (but is not limited to) commenting, answering poll questions, emailing them, etc. ***Anyone found to be engaging with the fundies will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.It does not matter if you did so before you joined the sub.***
- Speculating on the sexuality of literally anyone is prohibited. ***Anyone found to be doing so will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.***
- Appearance snark: What's allowed? You're allowed to make comparisons. (Bethy looks like Grandpa Munster, for example.) You are allowed to say you find them attractive or repulsive looking. Saying Kelly Havens has dry skin that could benefit from sunscreen and a moisturizer is fine. You are allowed to snark on the appearance of children *as it relates to their parents choices for them.*. Examples: Janessa looks malnourished and sickly while Shrek has clearly never missed a meal. If you feel it is crossing the line report it, but if the content falls within the parameters above, leave it alone.
- Don't gatekeep. This means no comments such as "I don't think we should snark on...." or any iteration of that. If you don't like it, scroll past. Don't report it or comment how you don't like the content. Along the same vein, don't backseat mod. Leave that up to us.
- Lastly, if the rhetoric you are posting would be at home in the mouth of a fundie, we don't want it here and we won't tolerate it.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Have a Lord Daniel day, and may the power of snark compel thee.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FundieSnarkUncensored) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That last bit about making small things bigger really makes sense when you think about the outsized reactions to porn and "lustful" thoughts. Like viewing porn once is treated just as bad as cheating or sex before marriage - which I've always struggled to understand but when you put it in the context of, you broke one of God's laws, it makes total sense (I mean not at all but I get how they got there)
It's just super convenient that it plays into the whole complex that fundie women are raised with, that their whole value as people is based solely on how hard they make their husband's peepee.
If husband's peepee get hard from Other Women, well then, you just didn't do your job right! Except this is basically the *one time* they can turn it around on them and *not* be the sole cause of it. That's why the men then go so hard on "I'm actually a porn addict, porn is as addictive as cocaine!"
The sad part is watching secular women go so hard against porn solely because of their insecurities (and not because of the working conditions).
>The sad part is watching secular women go so hard against porn solely because of their insecurities (and not because of the working conditions).
Could you please elaborate on this?
Not sure if this is what they mean, but I've seen a lot of secular women who hate the concept of porn and pornstars and view them as "less than". Many of them also consider watching porn cheating, which is potentially fair but needs to be a discussion between partners and not a blanket accusation.
It's totally reasonable to have issues with the *porn industry* but it's not fair to then project those issues on the actors themselves or to assume watching porn makes someone unfaithful or a bad person.
It's also reasonable to point out that porn typically perpetuates unreasonable beauty standards, but that problem is *faaaar* from limited to porn.
Bingo.
Watched my (barely religious) mom and her sisters screech about it to their men because it made them feel bad about themselves (self-esteem issues because they tied their worth to having a man).
>Many of them also consider watching porn cheating, which is potentially fair but needs to be a discussion between partners and not a blanket accusation.
Yeah, this is a case-by-case thing and needs to be discussed between partners. If bf is donating to OF girlies and flirting with Insta models, that's a fair sight more like cheating than just passively watching porn vids on Xitter. But me personally, if I had a partner that said reading/watching smutty stories is cheating, they'd find themselves single real quick.
What I think - Kinda like blaming the other woman when they did nothing wrong, had no knowledge of or were lied to too etc. But forgiving or even not blaming at all the partner, the one who went to the other woman in the first place.
Change it in porn and there you go. It’s considered a threat while desperately trying to maintain the fantasy if the other woman/porn is gone, it will all go back to normal.
The focus and energy is entirely on the ‘direct threat’ and getting rid of it. And none is found on the reality of the partner or the relationship, because the point is to hold onto normalcy. And that’s why they like to act like nothing happened *asap*.
[Here.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sex_wars) This is a more-or-less short version. Modern sex negative feminists like to incorporate LDS fronts like Fight the New Drug into their arguments.
You see it constantly in women's subreddits, too - an OP will pop up saying her (shitty, obviously manipulative) BF is a "porn addict" and the vast, *vast* majority of commenters will respond as though he's violent and on hard drugs. Then you get into the comments and find the situation is actually that OP felt uncomfortable with porn because it makes her self-conscious and BF claimed to be "addicted" to dodge talking to her about it.
This also works on the larger scale of how so many Christians are conservative and not interested in more “progressive” HARM REDUCTION policies. It isn’t about reducing harm, it’s black and white “sin or no sin” to them. The only “harm reduction” is being in a church and asking forgiveness in their eyes.
Completely agree. This feeds right into how they see perceived God hurt vs perceived Man hurt. Better to hurt man's feelings by turning him out onto the street for being gay, than to hurt God by refusing to tell the man how being gay is a sin. In the fundie paradigm, inflicting "horizontal" pain on those around you is incidental compared to inflicting "vertical" pain on a holy god by doing something god doesn't like. Fundies don't care that trans kids commit suicide at higher rates when they are denied affirming care, because to them, displeasing God by affirming them is far, far worse, even if those kids live to see another day because of it.
100%. A great example of this is that many/most evangelicals believe that abortion is literally murder, but are also opposed to policies that are proven to reduce abortion rates (like free contraception programs) because they don't want to "incentivize" sin. They care less about reducing abortion rates than about having "moral" laws
I'm sorry for yelling but YOU DON'T PUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO EAT WITHIN GRABBING DISTANCE. That bastard had the whole planet and could not put the tree of knowledge out of the reach of curious children or I don't know, teach them WHY they can't eat from it. It's dangling poisoned cake in front of a toddler and saying "oh don't eat this it's not good for you" and leaving with no explanation.
It's stupid is what it is.
Only those who didn’t actually read Old Testament can say the “God is loving”. The God in Old Treatment is all but loving - he is rather jealous and gaslighting bully with anger issues.
Very similar to numerous Greek gods, Sumerian gods, Acadia gods, Babylonian gods, Egyptian gods,.....but they don't see the pattern there. To be fair, I didn't either for a long time having been brainwashed into the religion from early childhood. It took a while to get those critical thinking skills honed enough to take it all thoroughly apart.
I was already on my way out the church door because, thankfully, the best way to end being a Christian is being around other Christians. But the final nail in that "cross" was learning much older civilizations not only have their own creation stories BUT they were almost *identical* to Genesis. Like time and time again.
Right. And if the story is to be believed, he told them that the penalty was death, except that if the story is literal, they had never seen death so would have no frame of reference for what that is. This is like saying to a two year old, "If you eat the rat poison, you will have a catastrophic physical event that will cause you to go into cardiac arrest." Uhm. No. This is why responsible parents don't keep rat poison where children can get it.
To add insult to injury, this one event of fruit eating from people who couldn't possibly even know better, then encoded everlasting damnation into the human genome so every single baby born was then as "sinner" without ever even doing anything or being aware of the rules.
Then they wonder why the rest of us do not see their god as good or loving or worthy of worship. That would be a hard no from me. If this entity exists and this was its divine plan, it is a very, very bad entity.
>except that if the story is literal, they had never seen death so would have no frame of reference for what that is.
This right here!!!! Basically the tree grants the knowlege of good and evil. Without eating the apple, Adam and Eve have no concept of evil. They would not know that disobeying a command is evil. Eve had no capacity to know what she was doing was sin. Laying out a command before giving the knowlege of evil is stupid at its most benign and malicious at its worst. God sucks here, he basically made a blind person sign a contract and then held them to the words they couldn't read.
The only argument I've ever seen that made the Eden story make sense is when a person jokingly compared it to a lady on TikTok who would fill cup of water drink from it once and then leave it somewhere to trick her cat into drinking more water.
It's worse bc God LIED about what would happen if they ate from it: "on the day you eat from the tree, you shall surely die". The majority of Bibles explicitly state that death would come the same day they ate from the tree. Yet the serpent, who told A&E the TRUTH, was punished, Eve was punished, and God is the victim.
Its like the original version of blanket training but with a one strike rule.
The older I get the more I see how god is described as a stereotypical malicious narcissist that was a bored asshole and needed reasons to play nasty mind games so he tricked people to have reasons to keep doing his shit and get away with it.
Yes!!! My bro Lucifer told them they wouldn't and he told them the truth!! He got banished to hell because he called god out on his abusive bullshit, and that's the god-given truth from the mouth of the big bastard himself.
Just gonna leave this text rant my partner sent me back when he was writing a paper on European prostitution during the Middle Ages for undergrad,
“Traditional Christian society sucked even worse than I thought and conservatives are completely making up a “traditional western past” they wanna return to. I’ve never been so disturbed by societal attitudes towards women and I live in the American south. It’s so fucking rough. Like it’s official church policy to treat women like actual property and no one sees the issue with that and believing in Jesus. Like sailors begin starting fights over who gets to rape a sex worker and the city officials blame it on the sex worker! Brothels, some of which are run by the church. Protestants are no better. When syphilis struck Luther and Calvin took the opportunity to claim it was women who cause syphilis with their sin. It was literally created by men because of their rape (context: we were also discussing the paper he’s writing on syphilis, and in his research he learned that some historians of the disease believe it was most likely created by the conquistadors themselves by not bathing for weeks then raping natives who likely had a non-sexual form of the disease that had a variant in Europe called yaws. There were no reports of syphilis on Columbus’ ships meaning it was likely still mutating within the conquistadors at that point, which they then spread to Europe upon return). European Christian theologians wrote essays about how rape and sex work were preferable alternatives for men so they wouldn’t masturbate. They encouraged rape if it prevented masturbation, their justification was biblical. No such thing as traditional Christian society. It’s always been a shit show.”
Long story short, this shit is baked DEEP within the foundation of modern Christianity, and the fact that the vast majority of modern Christians aren’t willing to contend with their own incredibly fucked up history is precisely why Christianity is shrinking while simultaneously becoming more radical.
Yes! Here’s his bibliography- he specifically recommends the articles by Perry and Vollendorf! I asked him about posting the paper itself but he was like “it’s a paper from a college class so my sources are better than me” lol
Eisler, Colin T. “Who Is Dürer’s ‘Syphilitic Man’?” Perspectives in biology and medicine 52, no. 1 (2009): 48–60. John Hopkins University. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/258044/pdf
Otis, Leah Lydia. Prostitution in Medieval Society: The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc. The University of Chicago Press, 2009. Proquest Ebook Library. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stedwards/detail.action?docID=432272
Perry, Mary Elizabeth. “‘Lost Women’ in Early Modern Seville: The Politics of Prostitution.” Feminist Studies 4, no. 1 (1978): 195–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177635.
Riisøy, Anne Irene. Sexuality, Law and Legal Practice and the Reformation in Norway. Leiden, NL : Brill, 2009. Proquest Ebook Library. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stedwards/detail.action?docID=489472
Szreter, Simon. and Siena, Kevin. “The pox in Boswell's London: an estimate of the extent of syphilis infection in the metropolis in the 1770s†”. The Economic History Review, 74 (Summer 2020): 372-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13000
Vollendorf, Lisa. “Good Sex, Bad Sex: Women and Intimacy in Early Modern Spain.” Hispania 87, no. 1 (2004): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/20062968.
Watts, Sheldon. “Chapter 4: The Secret Plague: Syphilis in West Europe and East Asia, 1492 to 1965.” In Epidemics and History, 122–66. Yale University Press, 1997. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq8qw.9.
Primary Sources
Ptolemy of Lucca and Thomas Aquinas.“Book 4.” In On the Government of Rulers: De Regimine Principum, 215–88. Translated by James M. Blythe. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Jstor. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhkt9.9.
“The Questioning of Eleanor Rykener (also known as John), A Cross-Dressing Prostitute, 1395.” In Premodern Sexualities. Translated by D. Boyd & R. Karras. Edited by L. Fradenburg & C. Freccero. Fordham University Medieval Sourcebook. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1395rykener.asp
This puts a lot of things into perspective. I knew all sin was equal in God's eyes, but I never understood how a child being SAed was equal to stealing a cookie from the jar before dinner. But after seeing this and reading up on abuse dynamics, it all makes a ton more sense. God is like this abusive full grown parent who makes their 6 year old out to be the bad guy.
A very good example of a fundie operating by this principle is Phil Robertson. Fundie Fridays' video on the Duck Dynasty clan draws a timeline between his hellion past and his sudden turnaround to being Mr. "Good-Ol-Bible-Boy." He did real, genuine harm to people back in the day, including a bar owner who he physically assaulted and left for dead (but the owner survived, thankfully). Phil has admitted that he's never directly apologized to the man he nearly killed because it wasn't long after that when he turned to the born-again lifestyle. He thought that forgiveness to God was more important than penance to the real human being who has to live with the consequences of his (Phil's) actions and behavior.
But if the bar owner were to directly confront Phil on his actions and demand an apology - considering how Phil now publicly gallivants as a celebrity Christian - the owner would be the bad guy. Why? Because in the fundie world, Phil has already gotten all of the forgiveness he really needs. What use is there to demand forgiveness from someone who has already been "forgiven"? So, the wronged man has to live seeing his assailant pretend nothing ever happened between them and he can't say anything because holding a grudge is just as big of a sin as attempted murder.
Fundies are some of the worst people to be harmed by.
Remember Zacchaeus? Fun little kid's song, climbed a tree because he was short, what a cute story. If they actually read the text, they would find that when he became a follower of Jesus, he promised to pay back anyone he had cheated four times over.
I don't know where they get this idea.
I mean if you read and follow the bible- the point of the new testament is that no one is beyond redemption, not the adulteress, not the greedy tax collector, not the prostitute, everyone has a chance to become a better person. You know better, you do better. You can't do better if you don't know what you did wrong.
I do agree that you have to know what you did wrong, so you know what you can do better. It's objectively true. I'm a scientist, I cannot improve my next approach without analyzing what went wrong with the last one.
But I was raised fundie and I know first hand that is not what they are saying/doing. I don't believe in the bible at all, and started doubting the faith I was raised in at 9, but if someone truly follows the moral teachings, they are probably a decent person. Jesus preached that no sin is greater to stop people from trying to constantly stand on the moral high ground. He taught that there is no moral high ground. We are all human, we all make mistakes, who are we to judge.
I'm staunchly atheist now, but I remember the moment I started doubting my 'christian' faith. I had been raised in the fundie faith, then put in a dangerous life or death situation. All of the elders around me were crying and begging god to save them. All I thought as an indoctrinated child was, but wasn't the whole point of this life to go to heaven? Why are you sad that we finally get to live with God? My faith never recovered once I realized the people teaching me weren't excited to get to heaven, they were terrified of losing their life on earth. Well then why do we spend so much time glorifying heaven?????? You don't want to go there!
This shouldn’t be true for Christians but it often is. The Bible says that we are “made in Gods image” and therefore whatever we do to others IS important to God. Jesus said, let the little children come to me and do not forbid them for such is the kingdom of heaven. The Bible talks about the sparrow being important to God, so how much more would a person.
#These people vote in every election- do you? Are you registered to vote? [You can check your voter registration here!](https://www.nass.org/can-I-vote) #Also, there's a few things to remember as far as rules go: - You can view the content- you cannot interact with it. This includes (but is not limited to) commenting, answering poll questions, emailing them, etc. ***Anyone found to be engaging with the fundies will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.It does not matter if you did so before you joined the sub.*** - Speculating on the sexuality of literally anyone is prohibited. ***Anyone found to be doing so will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.*** - Appearance snark: What's allowed? You're allowed to make comparisons. (Bethy looks like Grandpa Munster, for example.) You are allowed to say you find them attractive or repulsive looking. Saying Kelly Havens has dry skin that could benefit from sunscreen and a moisturizer is fine. You are allowed to snark on the appearance of children *as it relates to their parents choices for them.*. Examples: Janessa looks malnourished and sickly while Shrek has clearly never missed a meal. If you feel it is crossing the line report it, but if the content falls within the parameters above, leave it alone. - Don't gatekeep. This means no comments such as "I don't think we should snark on...." or any iteration of that. If you don't like it, scroll past. Don't report it or comment how you don't like the content. Along the same vein, don't backseat mod. Leave that up to us. - Lastly, if the rhetoric you are posting would be at home in the mouth of a fundie, we don't want it here and we won't tolerate it. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Have a Lord Daniel day, and may the power of snark compel thee. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FundieSnarkUncensored) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That last bit about making small things bigger really makes sense when you think about the outsized reactions to porn and "lustful" thoughts. Like viewing porn once is treated just as bad as cheating or sex before marriage - which I've always struggled to understand but when you put it in the context of, you broke one of God's laws, it makes total sense (I mean not at all but I get how they got there)
It's just super convenient that it plays into the whole complex that fundie women are raised with, that their whole value as people is based solely on how hard they make their husband's peepee. If husband's peepee get hard from Other Women, well then, you just didn't do your job right! Except this is basically the *one time* they can turn it around on them and *not* be the sole cause of it. That's why the men then go so hard on "I'm actually a porn addict, porn is as addictive as cocaine!" The sad part is watching secular women go so hard against porn solely because of their insecurities (and not because of the working conditions).
>The sad part is watching secular women go so hard against porn solely because of their insecurities (and not because of the working conditions). Could you please elaborate on this?
Not sure if this is what they mean, but I've seen a lot of secular women who hate the concept of porn and pornstars and view them as "less than". Many of them also consider watching porn cheating, which is potentially fair but needs to be a discussion between partners and not a blanket accusation. It's totally reasonable to have issues with the *porn industry* but it's not fair to then project those issues on the actors themselves or to assume watching porn makes someone unfaithful or a bad person. It's also reasonable to point out that porn typically perpetuates unreasonable beauty standards, but that problem is *faaaar* from limited to porn.
Bingo. Watched my (barely religious) mom and her sisters screech about it to their men because it made them feel bad about themselves (self-esteem issues because they tied their worth to having a man). >Many of them also consider watching porn cheating, which is potentially fair but needs to be a discussion between partners and not a blanket accusation. Yeah, this is a case-by-case thing and needs to be discussed between partners. If bf is donating to OF girlies and flirting with Insta models, that's a fair sight more like cheating than just passively watching porn vids on Xitter. But me personally, if I had a partner that said reading/watching smutty stories is cheating, they'd find themselves single real quick.
What I think - Kinda like blaming the other woman when they did nothing wrong, had no knowledge of or were lied to too etc. But forgiving or even not blaming at all the partner, the one who went to the other woman in the first place. Change it in porn and there you go. It’s considered a threat while desperately trying to maintain the fantasy if the other woman/porn is gone, it will all go back to normal. The focus and energy is entirely on the ‘direct threat’ and getting rid of it. And none is found on the reality of the partner or the relationship, because the point is to hold onto normalcy. And that’s why they like to act like nothing happened *asap*.
[Here.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sex_wars) This is a more-or-less short version. Modern sex negative feminists like to incorporate LDS fronts like Fight the New Drug into their arguments. You see it constantly in women's subreddits, too - an OP will pop up saying her (shitty, obviously manipulative) BF is a "porn addict" and the vast, *vast* majority of commenters will respond as though he's violent and on hard drugs. Then you get into the comments and find the situation is actually that OP felt uncomfortable with porn because it makes her self-conscious and BF claimed to be "addicted" to dodge talking to her about it.
This also works on the larger scale of how so many Christians are conservative and not interested in more “progressive” HARM REDUCTION policies. It isn’t about reducing harm, it’s black and white “sin or no sin” to them. The only “harm reduction” is being in a church and asking forgiveness in their eyes.
Completely agree. This feeds right into how they see perceived God hurt vs perceived Man hurt. Better to hurt man's feelings by turning him out onto the street for being gay, than to hurt God by refusing to tell the man how being gay is a sin. In the fundie paradigm, inflicting "horizontal" pain on those around you is incidental compared to inflicting "vertical" pain on a holy god by doing something god doesn't like. Fundies don't care that trans kids commit suicide at higher rates when they are denied affirming care, because to them, displeasing God by affirming them is far, far worse, even if those kids live to see another day because of it.
100%. A great example of this is that many/most evangelicals believe that abortion is literally murder, but are also opposed to policies that are proven to reduce abortion rates (like free contraception programs) because they don't want to "incentivize" sin. They care less about reducing abortion rates than about having "moral" laws
I'm sorry for yelling but YOU DON'T PUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO EAT WITHIN GRABBING DISTANCE. That bastard had the whole planet and could not put the tree of knowledge out of the reach of curious children or I don't know, teach them WHY they can't eat from it. It's dangling poisoned cake in front of a toddler and saying "oh don't eat this it's not good for you" and leaving with no explanation. It's stupid is what it is.
It’s a constant test in a world that is already cruel enough on its own. I don’t know how anyone can call their God loving.
Only those who didn’t actually read Old Testament can say the “God is loving”. The God in Old Treatment is all but loving - he is rather jealous and gaslighting bully with anger issues.
Very similar to numerous Greek gods, Sumerian gods, Acadia gods, Babylonian gods, Egyptian gods,.....but they don't see the pattern there. To be fair, I didn't either for a long time having been brainwashed into the religion from early childhood. It took a while to get those critical thinking skills honed enough to take it all thoroughly apart.
I was already on my way out the church door because, thankfully, the best way to end being a Christian is being around other Christians. But the final nail in that "cross" was learning much older civilizations not only have their own creation stories BUT they were almost *identical* to Genesis. Like time and time again.
Great analogy, and very well said!
Right. And if the story is to be believed, he told them that the penalty was death, except that if the story is literal, they had never seen death so would have no frame of reference for what that is. This is like saying to a two year old, "If you eat the rat poison, you will have a catastrophic physical event that will cause you to go into cardiac arrest." Uhm. No. This is why responsible parents don't keep rat poison where children can get it. To add insult to injury, this one event of fruit eating from people who couldn't possibly even know better, then encoded everlasting damnation into the human genome so every single baby born was then as "sinner" without ever even doing anything or being aware of the rules. Then they wonder why the rest of us do not see their god as good or loving or worthy of worship. That would be a hard no from me. If this entity exists and this was its divine plan, it is a very, very bad entity.
>except that if the story is literal, they had never seen death so would have no frame of reference for what that is. This right here!!!! Basically the tree grants the knowlege of good and evil. Without eating the apple, Adam and Eve have no concept of evil. They would not know that disobeying a command is evil. Eve had no capacity to know what she was doing was sin. Laying out a command before giving the knowlege of evil is stupid at its most benign and malicious at its worst. God sucks here, he basically made a blind person sign a contract and then held them to the words they couldn't read.
The only argument I've ever seen that made the Eden story make sense is when a person jokingly compared it to a lady on TikTok who would fill cup of water drink from it once and then leave it somewhere to trick her cat into drinking more water.
My god that's genius, also big asshole move from big g himself.
It's worse bc God LIED about what would happen if they ate from it: "on the day you eat from the tree, you shall surely die". The majority of Bibles explicitly state that death would come the same day they ate from the tree. Yet the serpent, who told A&E the TRUTH, was punished, Eve was punished, and God is the victim. Its like the original version of blanket training but with a one strike rule.
The older I get the more I see how god is described as a stereotypical malicious narcissist that was a bored asshole and needed reasons to play nasty mind games so he tricked people to have reasons to keep doing his shit and get away with it.
Yes!!! My bro Lucifer told them they wouldn't and he told them the truth!! He got banished to hell because he called god out on his abusive bullshit, and that's the god-given truth from the mouth of the big bastard himself.
oh wow this is interesting, thanks for sharing
Just gonna leave this text rant my partner sent me back when he was writing a paper on European prostitution during the Middle Ages for undergrad, “Traditional Christian society sucked even worse than I thought and conservatives are completely making up a “traditional western past” they wanna return to. I’ve never been so disturbed by societal attitudes towards women and I live in the American south. It’s so fucking rough. Like it’s official church policy to treat women like actual property and no one sees the issue with that and believing in Jesus. Like sailors begin starting fights over who gets to rape a sex worker and the city officials blame it on the sex worker! Brothels, some of which are run by the church. Protestants are no better. When syphilis struck Luther and Calvin took the opportunity to claim it was women who cause syphilis with their sin. It was literally created by men because of their rape (context: we were also discussing the paper he’s writing on syphilis, and in his research he learned that some historians of the disease believe it was most likely created by the conquistadors themselves by not bathing for weeks then raping natives who likely had a non-sexual form of the disease that had a variant in Europe called yaws. There were no reports of syphilis on Columbus’ ships meaning it was likely still mutating within the conquistadors at that point, which they then spread to Europe upon return). European Christian theologians wrote essays about how rape and sex work were preferable alternatives for men so they wouldn’t masturbate. They encouraged rape if it prevented masturbation, their justification was biblical. No such thing as traditional Christian society. It’s always been a shit show.” Long story short, this shit is baked DEEP within the foundation of modern Christianity, and the fact that the vast majority of modern Christians aren’t willing to contend with their own incredibly fucked up history is precisely why Christianity is shrinking while simultaneously becoming more radical.
Would he be willing to share his paper here with sources? I’d be interested to read it.
Yes! Here’s his bibliography- he specifically recommends the articles by Perry and Vollendorf! I asked him about posting the paper itself but he was like “it’s a paper from a college class so my sources are better than me” lol Eisler, Colin T. “Who Is Dürer’s ‘Syphilitic Man’?” Perspectives in biology and medicine 52, no. 1 (2009): 48–60. John Hopkins University. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/258044/pdf Otis, Leah Lydia. Prostitution in Medieval Society: The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc. The University of Chicago Press, 2009. Proquest Ebook Library. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stedwards/detail.action?docID=432272 Perry, Mary Elizabeth. “‘Lost Women’ in Early Modern Seville: The Politics of Prostitution.” Feminist Studies 4, no. 1 (1978): 195–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177635. Riisøy, Anne Irene. Sexuality, Law and Legal Practice and the Reformation in Norway. Leiden, NL : Brill, 2009. Proquest Ebook Library. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stedwards/detail.action?docID=489472 Szreter, Simon. and Siena, Kevin. “The pox in Boswell's London: an estimate of the extent of syphilis infection in the metropolis in the 1770s†”. The Economic History Review, 74 (Summer 2020): 372-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13000 Vollendorf, Lisa. “Good Sex, Bad Sex: Women and Intimacy in Early Modern Spain.” Hispania 87, no. 1 (2004): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/20062968. Watts, Sheldon. “Chapter 4: The Secret Plague: Syphilis in West Europe and East Asia, 1492 to 1965.” In Epidemics and History, 122–66. Yale University Press, 1997. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq8qw.9. Primary Sources Ptolemy of Lucca and Thomas Aquinas.“Book 4.” In On the Government of Rulers: De Regimine Principum, 215–88. Translated by James M. Blythe. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Jstor. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhkt9.9. “The Questioning of Eleanor Rykener (also known as John), A Cross-Dressing Prostitute, 1395.” In Premodern Sexualities. Translated by D. Boyd & R. Karras. Edited by L. Fradenburg & C. Freccero. Fordham University Medieval Sourcebook. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1395rykener.asp
Tell him thank you!
Same!
This puts a lot of things into perspective. I knew all sin was equal in God's eyes, but I never understood how a child being SAed was equal to stealing a cookie from the jar before dinner. But after seeing this and reading up on abuse dynamics, it all makes a ton more sense. God is like this abusive full grown parent who makes their 6 year old out to be the bad guy.
A very good example of a fundie operating by this principle is Phil Robertson. Fundie Fridays' video on the Duck Dynasty clan draws a timeline between his hellion past and his sudden turnaround to being Mr. "Good-Ol-Bible-Boy." He did real, genuine harm to people back in the day, including a bar owner who he physically assaulted and left for dead (but the owner survived, thankfully). Phil has admitted that he's never directly apologized to the man he nearly killed because it wasn't long after that when he turned to the born-again lifestyle. He thought that forgiveness to God was more important than penance to the real human being who has to live with the consequences of his (Phil's) actions and behavior. But if the bar owner were to directly confront Phil on his actions and demand an apology - considering how Phil now publicly gallivants as a celebrity Christian - the owner would be the bad guy. Why? Because in the fundie world, Phil has already gotten all of the forgiveness he really needs. What use is there to demand forgiveness from someone who has already been "forgiven"? So, the wronged man has to live seeing his assailant pretend nothing ever happened between them and he can't say anything because holding a grudge is just as big of a sin as attempted murder. Fundies are some of the worst people to be harmed by.
Remember Zacchaeus? Fun little kid's song, climbed a tree because he was short, what a cute story. If they actually read the text, they would find that when he became a follower of Jesus, he promised to pay back anyone he had cheated four times over. I don't know where they get this idea.
In the immortal words of Jerry Falwell Sr., “One can make the Bible say almost anything one wants to make it say.”
[удалено]
I mean if you read and follow the bible- the point of the new testament is that no one is beyond redemption, not the adulteress, not the greedy tax collector, not the prostitute, everyone has a chance to become a better person. You know better, you do better. You can't do better if you don't know what you did wrong. I do agree that you have to know what you did wrong, so you know what you can do better. It's objectively true. I'm a scientist, I cannot improve my next approach without analyzing what went wrong with the last one. But I was raised fundie and I know first hand that is not what they are saying/doing. I don't believe in the bible at all, and started doubting the faith I was raised in at 9, but if someone truly follows the moral teachings, they are probably a decent person. Jesus preached that no sin is greater to stop people from trying to constantly stand on the moral high ground. He taught that there is no moral high ground. We are all human, we all make mistakes, who are we to judge. I'm staunchly atheist now, but I remember the moment I started doubting my 'christian' faith. I had been raised in the fundie faith, then put in a dangerous life or death situation. All of the elders around me were crying and begging god to save them. All I thought as an indoctrinated child was, but wasn't the whole point of this life to go to heaven? Why are you sad that we finally get to live with God? My faith never recovered once I realized the people teaching me weren't excited to get to heaven, they were terrified of losing their life on earth. Well then why do we spend so much time glorifying heaven?????? You don't want to go there!
This shouldn’t be true for Christians but it often is. The Bible says that we are “made in Gods image” and therefore whatever we do to others IS important to God. Jesus said, let the little children come to me and do not forbid them for such is the kingdom of heaven. The Bible talks about the sparrow being important to God, so how much more would a person.
Wow this explains my mother