Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
Why are non southern baptist people getting pissed over what happens in the southern baptist convention? It literally doesn’t affect you 😐
These assholes vote.
That affects me.
I want to live in a more fair, equal, and just society while they do everything in their power to drag us back to howling barbarism and then pretend I’m the one persecuting them.
There isn’t correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn’t have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn’t contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.
Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.
Yeah. No.
Sorry. That would not be a distinction first century audiences would make. Women were to obey their husbands (or fathers if they were unmarried) in all things, not just in spiritual matters.
Obey their husbands, yes. Doesn’t have much to do with secular job roles
So if a husband were to say, “Baby, I’d like it if you stopped working as an accountant so that you could suck my dick more,” … and she’s like “No,” … is she disobeying her husband?
The answer is yes. and I’m a little pissed that you don’t see that.
Yes, I do see that, but that’s within a marriage setting. Completely different to if a man she isn’t married to refuses to hire her as an accountant because she’s a woman.
yeah. he tells children to submit to parents, too.
At no point does Paul tell men to submit to women in the same way that he tells women to submit to men. Neither does he tell parents to submit to children.
Also there were very few women who were unmarried, culturally, at that time, the role of women were to mary and attend to their husband’s house and raise their children. No where does he contradict that.
He doesn’t tell women to submit to men, he tells wives to submit to their husbands. Both male and female children submit to their parents. Of course he doesn’t tell parents to submit to their children, that’s essentially lunacy.
Generally it’s traditionally believed that Mary Magdalene didn’t marry. Consecrated virgins (nuns) were also a thing
Paul defends the decision of women not to marry
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
Because these are highly organized lunatics who vote.
There isn’t correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn’t have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn’t contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.
Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.
if some randos on lemmy have to explain to you the socioeconomic influence of organised religion on society then you sure as hell are not one to judge others opinions.
Why is someone from the UK so butthurt about Americans reacting to American problems? You’re literally calling people in the comments bigots for making tongue-in-cheek comments about banning churches and pretending like morality is impossible to quantify and purely subjective.
This isn’t an American issue, it’s a Christian issue. Christian church structure doesn’t answer to secular morality.
Banning churches is religious bigotry.
Morality isn’t subjective. Morality has an objective foundation. For a Christian, that objective foundation for morality is found within The Bible correctly interpreted and read within context. The Bible forbids women from holding authority over men in ecclesial matters. Therefore it cannot be morally wrong.
My religion says that I am morally obligated to beat you up and steal your car, so how dare you argue that I shouldn’t.
You’re a religious bigot if you try to tell me that following the tenets of my faith are wrong.
Just because a book says a thing doesn’t make it right or justified, and crying about being a victim while actively supporting oppression doesn’t make you a champion of good.
You might want to read up on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy too.
I am not a part of your religion. So why should it affect me? The ecclesial structure of churches doesn’t affect you. If you want to form a religion where consenting converts are obliged to beat each other up and be beaten up and steal each others cars, why should I object
Several reasons. First, humans have already decided that intentionally causing harm is not something we condone as a society, even under the guise of cultural or religious exemption. Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.
Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.
And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.
If you’re vying for leadership, you are definitely there voluntarily.
That’s a separate issue - here it seems people want to impose secular values on the way the Southern Baptists do things. You can’t have it one way (In most cases, I do condemn the imposition of Christianity on the general secular public)
And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.
I agree to a point. I think it is okay for Christians to be involved in politics, and a lot of those Christians would have their opinions and views originate from their philosophy which is rooted in Christianity. So these will be ideals that life is sacred, that the marginalised and oppressed should be uplifted, that people should be forgiven, etc. However, I wouldn’t see why things like adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, fornication or idolatry between consenting adults should be prohibited. If people want to be free to destroy themselves and make bad decisions, they have the right to do so as long as it isn’t harming others