I’m confused. Is the fifth the pro or the anti LGBTQ part? Probably the former though.
“I don’t think any of us want to see any of our churches leave,” he said. “We’re called to be the body of Christ, we’re called to be unified. There’s never been a time when the church has not been without conflict, but there’s been a way we’ve worked through that.”
Well, here’s the thing: you either move with the times or you get left behind. The German Catholic Church is in a similar trifle with Rome since recent years. IIRC it’s over letting women and married people be priests. Rome still follows a hardline NO on that but what they don’t get is that it’s not really up to them. This is no longer a niche opinion in Germany that you can squash from on high. The church’s stance is the niche opinion now.
A mistranslation of some milennia-old texts, published by a bunch of crusty old 17th-century white men is an interesting hill to die on, isn’t it? Imagine what these self-righteous bigots would do to Jesus (a bold and prominent brown socialist) if they met him on the street.
As a former UMC, it’s nice to see such a large chunk of them willing to break off rather than adopt pro-hatred policies.
I still think religion is generally pretty silly, but it’s slightly less silly when it becomes a tool for enriching people’s lives instead of making them hate themselves and others.
Actually, the one’s breaking off are the conservative ones. They’re mad because the main assembly won’t enforce the homophobic rules. They’re joining a splinter denomination that’s more hardline.
I grew up and was quite active in the UMC. Seeing stories like this give me some hope that the church is finding it’s way again after the evangelicals took over. The evangelicals seem to be the ones that are leaving, btw. I left long ago and consider myself non-religious due to the evangelical movement that’s grown so powerful these days.
I decided to look up the church’s position and found it here: [umc.org/…/ask-the-umc-what-is-the-churchs-positio…] Still leaves a lot to be desired, but it’s a step in the right direction. Albeit very small step.
This comment section really gives me pause though. You don’t have to agree with someone’s spiritual or religious views, but you should respect them. Now, if those religious views are hateful and encourage violence, then yes by all means call them on their BS. I’ll hold the bull-horn for you and have your back if things go sideways. But the hate and anger in this comment section was aimed at the people that are trying to change the church for the better, not those that left because they hate the LGBTQ+ folks. Seems folks forgot the humans.
A literal interpretation of the old testament bible. And the idea that a nearly 3000 year old collection of verbal teachings by a mostly tribal society is still applicable today. There are a lot of rules there that if they followed would lead to some hilarity. Some that would lead to a lot of heartache too. [rationalwiki.org/…/List_of_actions_prohibited_by_…] The evangelicals ignore the parts of the new testament they don’t like and the new covenant that Jesus represents. Read that as they ignore the parts about love and compassion for your fellow human; living with grace and kindness.
Multiple intentional mistranslations. Added to that cherry picking which gospels you want to add because some of them contradict the religion you’re trying to build.
Ah yes, the “apocrypha”. One would think an ideology supernaturally delivered to anointed individuals by an omnipotent and omniscient deity wouldn’t have so many contradictions and texts left on the cutting room floor.
You don’t have to agree with someone’s spiritual or religious views, but you should respect them.
You should really learn to distinguish between spiritual/religious views and the organization of religion into hierarchical organizations of churches though, TBH. And the indoctrination of people into those hierarchies both through coercive family relations (e.g. parent/child) and by systems like colonization and the genocidal missionary work that goes along with it. People are generally right that these hierarchies are destructive to society, whether or not we respect people’s personal beliefs.
I did not write a full dissertation on my personal feelings on religions role in societal growth and collapse because I didn’t think it was relevant. Therefore, you really do not have any basis for judging what it is I need to research or learn to distinguish. I may agree with your world view, but I have not given you any data with which to make that conclusion.
Context is fun. What you did do is reply in a thread in which people are criticizing churches and their influence; a reply disparaging those statements and implying they aren’t being respectful of people’s spiritual/religious views. Dissertation unnecessary.
I have a pretty unique perspective on this as someone who’s worked in churches my entire adult life. Probably the hardest interview question I’ve ever been asked–across both technical and non-technical interviews–was when I was interviewing to be the organist at a large UMC church in early 2019, right before the General Conference vote that set all of this off. They basically summarized the situation to me and then asked if I was comfortable coming into the position not knowing which way the vote would go. In many ways, this question felt like asking if I had principles and if I was willing to stick to them. As a progressive person, I had to really think about if I’d be ok being in a place where I wouldn’t be allowed to play for a same-sex wedding.
That church’s senior pastor was one of the leading figures in the movement to affirm LGBTQ members. We quietly performed at least one same-sex marriage while I was there, which was technically in defiance of the denomination’s restrictions. Since then, I’ve moved to one of the most prominent progressive mainline Protestant megachurches in the US. We’ve had long standing partnerships with many LGTBQ organizations, and we do lots of tangible things for all sorts of underrepresented communities. We had a visiting trans pastor speak about a month ago, and they received an instant ovation from the congregation.
My point in all of this is that it frustrates me to see comment sections like much of this one where people insist that every church is a highly regressive place. As someone who’s in the closed door meetings, I promise you that there are many that are not, and it’s not just all a ploy to try to stay relevant in today’s society. Some places really do support these causes because they believe in them.
(As a footnote, I’ll say that I don’t like to talk about my religious views online, as it might put me in a weird position with my current and potential future employers. An acquaintance of mine wrote a great blog post that sums up my feelings well.)
Your point is well-made, but I worry you’re applying literal interpretation to rhetorical generalizing that require slightly deeper reading. For better or worse, humans like to make sweeping generalizations, and only in the most extreme instances do they legitimately believe they apply to everyone in that given population.
For example: The women tweeting about how “men suck” isn’t thinking of every man that has ever existed; she knows men aren’t a monolith; she has a picture in her mind of a particular type of man, one that has been a source of trauma for her and countless other women. If you know you aren’t that type of man, then you know that her words aren’t directed at you; the same principle, imo, applies to churches and religion.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but on the whole religion is used as a tool of exclusion and oppression much more than it is used to promote compassion and progress. When people make generalizations about churches and religion, they’re envisioning the regressive, bigoted zealot that has been the source of trauma for so many. The church you describe would not fall into that category, so try not to take such comments to heart.
So wait, are the churches that are leaving in support of the LGBTQ bans that they have? Or are they protesting them? Because the article wasn’t totally clear but it seemed like the conservatives were the ones leaving.
So it’s conservatives leaving because they can tell the winds of change are coming?
Yeah, it’s a bit confusing, but I think that the church made bans on lgbt people/marriage and there were a lot of churches that pushed back. The tolerance of that pushback by the main church led many bigoted groups to leave in increasingly larger numbers.
They mention that after the schism is complete, the “progressive” church members plan to start talking about reform to make the church “relevant in the 21st century”.
The United Methodist Church wants to allow LGBT people to be members, the people splitting off don’t. It is weirdly worded but there’s a new conservative sect called the Global Methodist Church that’s more anti gay and I would guess most of the churches splitting off are going to join that sect.
Since the 70s, there’s been a couple lines in their Book of Discipline (central doctrine and interpretation) that say that people are to be loved, but the practice is homosexuality is “inconsistent with Christian teaching”. We progressives have been trying to take that back out but the “traditionalists” play legislative games to prevent and real debate. On the flip side, it says nothing about trans people because progressives play the same games too keep their bigoted crap out.
Back in 2019 the UMC held a special General Conference to address the issue. The traditionalists paired up with churches from Africa and a couple other places to make things worse but also created an easy way to leave the denomination. Right after, they started the GMC denomination and started leaving the UMC . IOW, they shit the bed and then moved out.
It’s really screwed up because the US congregations tend to be affirming and are shirking while the overseas congregations are more traditional but growing. They had the long term advantage. I think they just wanted to burn it all down. Think Steve Bannon and his desire to destroy the US government
There is also another layer of convoluted-ness to my understanding. Even though the homophobic churches won and prevented removal of anti-gay language, the homophobic churches in the US are all pissy as no one is enforcing it. Progressive UMC churches openly ignore and break the homophobic rules.
So the UMC has been bleeding churches from both ends in the US. I believe most have been homophobic churches running away because no one is enforcing their bigotry, but some are progressive churches which have left because they did not want to appear to support the bigotry still in the doctrine and to avoid any risk of the bigotry being enforced on them in the future.
Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view that every religious leader/person is stupid and unable to critically think? It is such a lazy and black-and-white view of a massive global population full of diverse people, thoughts, and beliefs.
Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view that every religious leader/person is stupid and unable to critically think?
Why? They clearly choose not to apply that ability to a big part of their lives. In this specific case under discussion, their entire career requires not applying any critical thinking. Their paycheck depends on their ability to convince other people of things that are not and can never be supported by any actual evidence.
It’s the reason that crowd is so susceptible, as a trend, to con men, malicious misinformation, and developing entire belief systems off a Facebook meme that pairs one politician’s face with a fake quote or a quote from a totally different politician. They’re trained, often from birth, that evidence is not necessary in the process of deciding what you want to believe; in fact, that evidence is often the bad guy (in that it opposes “faith”).
So, no. We’ll drop the characterization if and only if it stops being relevant to our day-to-day lives in America. It’s not the atheists who are saying they think I should get the death penalty (DeSantis’s preacher), that I should be shot in the back of the head (Texas Baptist Church), that God should kill me slowly (Pure Words Baptist Church), and that I should be hunted with dogs (governor of SC).
Okay so you’re going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PERSON EVER has no critical thinking skills?The LGBTQIA+ pastors that started a socialist christian church in Kentucky? MLK? Malcom X? Johann Bernoulli, Blaise Pascal, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves? Immanuel Kant, famous influential philosopher, no critical thinking. Every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindi, Buddhist, Shintoists, and every other religion in existence throughout history, not a single person alive today who believes in religion can think for themselves? Between 70-85% of the global population (depending on what source you look at) report themselves as follower of a religion. No critical thinking abilities across 75% of the global population?
you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PERSON EVER has no critical thinking skills?
I honestly believe the ones that matter certainly don’t. The ones who are paying the church’s bills and showing up to their pep rallies every week are very clearly not spending any time thinking about it.
The LGBTQIA+ pastors that started a socialist christian church in Kentucky?
Who? Let me know when they start affecting actual government policy, or even just going on TV and saying “We condemn those other Christians who say gay people should be shot in the back of the head.” That’s what we’ve been demanding from Muslims since 2001, why are you special?
MLK? Malcom X? Johann Bernoulli, Blaise Pascal, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,
Blah blah blah, fallacious appeal to authority, blah blah blah. Name-dropping is not “critical thinking”, and you really shouldn’t have included a literal, straight-up alchemist in that list if you were trying to use it to make a point.
all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves?
MLK and Malcom X were mathematicians? TIL.
Immanuel Kant, famous influential philosopher, no critical thinking.
So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.
all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves?
MLK and Malcom X were mathematicians? TIL.
Tbh not being able to understand how sentence structure works and scope of descriptors is about the level of critical thinking I expected in a response.
You are right. You are very smart and good at critical thinking. No one in religion is 1/1000th as good at critical thinking as you. Religious Philosophy and Theology are not fields of study that use critical thinking at all. Thank you for blessing me with your incredible insight. We should all tremble before your very smart and well-thought ideas. I am sorry I tried to critically think about the world around me when I should have just listened to you.
You know, it’s fine to dislike religious people and believe different things. But you’re acting pretty intolerant here. Insulting others beliefs and intelligence isn’t cool just cause you disagree with it.
“Level of discourse…from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking.” “Magical sky faerie” “fallacious appeal to authority”. You sound like a pseudo-intellectual who gets off on putting down others and you found a population that you feel you’re allowed to do this to.
Reported your comment as well. You don’t have to be nasty just cause you dislike someone’s perspective on life. And don’t hit me with “well they hate xyz people”. I know you know not all religious folks share the same view - or I’d at least hope so.
Please disengage, this is simply not productive. I understand you may have been tangibly hurt by religious folks who have persecuted you or your loved ones. I have suffered real harm from this as well. But making sweeping statements about broad categories of people is generally not a great take and being confrontational with a moderator asking for some civility in a thread and appealing to humanity is not a good look.
Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view
That’s really not something a mod should say and pretty much dismissing an opinion without even engaging it. I guess atheists are just ok to dismiss and deny an opinion?
That’s a bad faith interpretation of what the mod said and who they were replying to. They were pointing out that the idea that all religious people are devoid of critical thinking skills is an incorrect take, and they were asking for people to move beyond a specific kind of toxic atheistic leaning.
What you are accusing me of, dismissing and denying all atheists (channel switching upwards) is what the original comment thread was doing, dismissing and denying all religious individuals.
To be absolutely clear, I think that religious people who are bigoted and incapable of critical thinking are a problem to society and I have suffered directly at the hands of these individuals, but we should be focusing on that or asking questions to confirm this shared concern rather than attacking each other because we jump to the conclusion that any push back to our words must come from an ideological standpoint in opposition to ours.
They could argue their point and were not attacking anyone specific. The mod continued to be upset and eventually attacked the poster specifically, when the posted stayed hypothetical.
If you don’t know how dismissive of atheists that saying is, how it’s used to shut down their opinion, which they were sharing without attacking someonee specifically, likely because they became atheists after a lot of personal work, is exactly why atheists get shut out of a conversation.
Is their opinion not valid? Have they attacked anyone or taken any rights, or just expressed an opinion they offered to discuss and never attcked anyone?
Literally they pointed out the flaws in the mods argument and the mod got mad. Only one group was being aggressive, one group made a mildly flippant joke and was willing to discuss the nuance. One became sarcastic and rude.
What’s happening in this thread of replies is exactly what I was pointing out when I stepped in earlier… This is not productive. Please disengage.
If you are unable to see how this is not productive, I would suggest you take a step back, disengage, and reread this thread with a fresh pair of eyes. Reread this thread and try to put yourself in the shoes of someone else who might not hold the same opinion as you do. In fact, I would encourage you to make up a purely hypothetical person, someone who is nice and caring but also religious, and ask yourself how this might feel.
If that’s not enough for you to see where things got derailed, here’s a detailed reply to some of your points
The mod continued to be upset and eventually attacked the poster specifically, when the posted stayed hypothetical.
Dismissing what someone says by using the following text
Blah blah blah, fallacious appeal to authority, blah blah blah.
is escalating. If OP was treating the mod with good faith, they would not be dismissive of them in a way which indicates they do not value their intelligence.
but even if you disagree with that
which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.
is an ad hominem and a direct attack on the mod. The person wasn’t just “pointing out the flaws in the mods argument”, they were dismissive and treating the mod with bad faith to push their point across as superior. They were not engaging in good faith.
At this point I’m going to disengage. If this isn’t enough for you to understand that things went bad somewhere and I stepped in to try and diffuse an unproductive conversation and to help keep this place civil, I can’t help you anymore and you either need to trust me, trust the opinions of others who have replied in this post, or move on from this issue. This isn’t productive.
I am disengaged, i have a life and the site was down.
If you don’t see the dog whistles that started because teens leaving religion on the internet were trying to explore themselves and break from what most people only follow because they were raised in it that the internet dismissed because of memes more than actual atheists causing issues.
Then beehaw is as bad as i was suspecting about trying too hard to appeal to everyone. You clearly wanted your mods words to be taken with respect and NOT users. If YOU are an admin and cannot see how your staff started issues and someone simply stepped in and stood firm, then you don’t allow people to stand up for themselves and as a queer atheist i get it, it’s not as popular, but you wouldn’t let any other minority group be treated this way and your administration needs to think about that.
Beehaw is good in theory but when you do not allow anyone to discuss things and come after the group who was under attack, your team needs more experience. I wish you all well and maybe beehaw will mature, but right now it’s centist leaning new age more than anything based on reality.
you wouldn’t let any other minority group be treated this way
Because you’re making an accusation here I want to clear up a misconception you seem to have. I am a queer atheist. The mod who stepped in is also a queer atheist. Please stop making assumptions without asking questions. I understand being guarded as a protective mechanism against the people who have caused you real harm in your life, I too have experienced similar harm. But I’m not out here to censor your opinion or attack you. I’m merely asking for you to disengage as things have gone off the rails.
I apologize for being a little annoyed right now. I feel like I’m being moderated for defending myself against their escalation.
The top level comment from the mod was not aggressive or accusatory.
My response to that top level comment was measured and nuanced, with specific examples of real events and an analysis of the mindset behind those events.
Their reply to me included all caps, excessive punctuation, extremely bad-faith arguments (the actual religious views of every single one of the names they dropped are incredibly complicated, not just “was Christian”; again, one member of that esteemed list literally believed he could turn lead into gold with magic), and that’s assuming calling the question of critical thinking outdated and childish (“2010 New Atheist”) is not an aggressive escalation.
Furthermore, you told me to disengage, and then the mod continued to engage. I’d appreciate it if they received a similar request, because right now it feels like you’re holding my arms behind my back while they get to keep punching me.
My response to that top level comment was measured and nuanced, with specific examples of real events and an analysis of the mindset behind those events.
That’s not how this came off to myself, or the people who reported various comments in this thread. I would encourage you to diffuse rather than escalate if you are ever met with something that feels like an escalation. It’s impossible to remove yourself entirely from a situation where you feel you are being attacked, which is why I push towards the concept of good faith. When it feels like someone is escalating- ask questions and try to diffuse rather than assume you have interpreted their words correctly.
If you need a more detailed view of how I interpreted the interaction, feel free to check my replies further down this thread to another individual.
Furthermore, you told me to disengage, and then the mod continued to engage. I’d appreciate it if they received a similar request
To be absolutely clear and transparent, they have and they have since deleted some of their replies. On a more practical level I am much more familiar with this mod and their judgement than I am with you, and I’m going to be generally siding with any moderator we have as they get vetted rather thoroughly… however, we are all human here and we make mistakes and we engage in human behavior. Please have patience with us and treat us with good faith. I’m sorry if anyone failed you here, but this kind of engagement- a good faith one, where you ask questions, and try to solve problems is what I personally love to see and it’s in my experience the best way to resolve conflict. Thank you for engaging in this manner 💜
. On a more practical level I am much more familiar with this mod and their judgement than I am with you, and I’m going to be generally siding with any moderator we have as they get vetted rather thoroughly
Well, I mean… ok, that’s fair. I can’t argue with that.
To be clear I chose to state that because I want to acknowledge my own biases here and the fact that I’m often pressed for time and making a response/decision based on a report or an escalation from a mod and a quick glance of what’s going on. The more that you make it unequivocally clear that you’re operating in good faith (even past the point that it is warranted) the more likely I am act differently based on reports/escalations given the fact that I don’t really know you right now. I don’t want to assign blame to anyone here, merely to diffuse a situation which went off the rails. Hopefully that context helps you understand why I acted in the way that I did.
To be clear I chose to state that because I want to acknowledge my own biases here and the fact that I’m often pressed for time
No, that’s totally fine, and I’m being completely serious. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that this community is much smaller and tighter than the ones I’m used to. It honestly never occurred to me that y’all would, like, actually know each other, which is my own bias.
No, absolutely not. By Reddit standards, this was a tiff. Maybe a smaller tussle. Definitely not a kerfluffle.
Besides, part of this is a “me” problem. I’m still adjusting to not having to come out of the gate swinging the first time I sense hostility. Did I respond to an energy? Sure. Did I respond to an intentional energy? …eh, maybe, maybe not. Did I go from 0-100 too fast? Probably. What I’m saying is, I see how I could have handled that better. And the fact that you took the time to engage with me over it is a big positive for the platform.
So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.
This is such a bad reading of the comment that I can only imagine you’re acting in bad faith. You have made the assumption that reason will inevitably lead people to the same conclusions about the world, but that is not true, and that is what the OP is bringing up. How is it that many people, when presented with the same sets of facts, and using the same reasonable principles, can come to differing conclusions? This question should keep you up at night, but instead it seems you’re only interested in saying “those other people are dumb, I am smart.”
I’m sorry. The question that keeps me up at night is “How are people able to just decide to believe something with no (or less than no) practical evidence?”. Just because a lot of people have managed it, even people who are very evidence-based in every other part of their life, doesn’t mean I can just do it. I’d literally have to think less about the implications of such a thing on the everyday world. I’d have to stop asking questions (like: “Does God help anyone? If so, how does he choose? If not, why pray?”, and no, “we just can’t understand him” is not an answer I can just choose to believe because I like it).
So yeah, this is obviously a “me” problem, since everyone else on this instance seems to intuitively grasp the idea that one can actually come to a valid, reality-based conclusion that God exists and I’m the “2010 New Atheist” for not being able to get on board.
I think 75% of the population literally try not to have critical thinking in one major aspect of their life that literally says don’t think, have faith.
It’s a part of religion to not think, to follow and obey. It’s sweet you want to defend them in other avenues, but cognitive dissonance is also causing a lot of sorrow and pain while religious people on majority are standing back and following their leaders, even the progressive ones, aren’t willing to progress fast enough. They’re still following something that’s usually mostly historically been oppressive and regressive to maintain power over the masses.
The issue is the framing of “organized religion” when what you really mean is “Christianity”. This has been the problem with new atheism for a long time: take valid criticisms of Christianity, along with the trauma and experiences in Christian churches, and then try to paint all religion with that same brush. And you can’t do that.
You’re angry at Christianity and its hegemony in American life. I get it and I share many of those fears and frustrations. You mentioned things happening in FL. I’m in FL, and as a queer person it’s fucking terrifying here. But the momentum behind that push isn’t coming from synagogues or mosques, or from Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists. It’s an explicit white Christian supremacist movement.
Christianity’s dogma, style of worship, mindsets, etc don’t map to other faiths. And even inside of Christianity there’s people who are trying to push back. But saying that things like this are characteristic of all religions shows a complete lack of understanding of faiths outside of Christianity.
I mean. They’re doubling down on stupid i think it’s fair to call them out on it. In order to follow most organized religion, you are taught to kill critical thinking and have faith. It’s literally a part of the whole thing
You’re in a thread that literally is about churches not going along with homophobic takes. People keep saying “religious people should stand up against the bigots” and because they are in the example, you have bigots splitting off. And then turn around and insult the intelligence of said religious people still.
Who really is the person showing a lack of critical thinking skills? I’d argue the one whose take lacks any nuance.
It’s about one small group. And one that couldn’t stop being taken over by assholes and has a schism because the more conversative left.
Among those who say they were raised exclusively by Protestants, roughly eight-in-ten now identify with Protestantism, including 80% of those raised by two Protestant parents and 75% of those raised by a single parent who was Protestant. Most who were raised exclusively by Protestants but who no longer identify as such are now religious “nones,” with smaller numbers now identifying with Catholicism or other religions.
I have done a lot of research and could have a nuanced discussion. I don’t think claiming people who have negative options are “2010 Atheists” is the bit of a bigot in this case. I think religion has enough people carrying water who were just raised in it and don’t think critically.
Add comment