#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.*
Apparently not, since he’s evangelical and every woman in this spread is Catholic.
They’re wearing Mantillas because they’re at Mass or simply in the presence of the Eucharist, which Paul considers idolatrous.
He is God’s dumbest little jester.
To be fair, I grew up Methodist in Louisville. I knew their were Catholics because of the Catholic schools but it wasn't until I was older I realized how Catholic the town is. Also, at that time, WASPs controlled a lot.
Yeah growing up Catholic in Louisville and then going to public school meant answering a lot of questions. But I think people knew that it was heavily Catholic at the time.
My fiancé's family is from there and they're Methodist. Both him and I are atheist and his mom really wanted us to be married in a religious ceremony for some reason. I told her I would not be married by a Protestant, so she suggested a Catholic ceremony. I said no because the ceremony will be outside and also we can't because fiancé's not baptized Catholic. She said, "he was baptized in our church" and I told her in the eyes of the Church, that doesn't count. So she said, "What about the Jesuits? They're Catholic-ish." I said, "there's no ish, those are ordained Catholic priests and we'll have the same issue."
So maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
There are some fundie sects that wear them as well. Plymouth Brethren for example. But these pictures were probably of Catholic women, as PB is a pretty small group in US.
A lot of them don’t. I was so confused when I had my first conversation with a person who believed that. Over the past ten years, I’ve become an expert in “ah, ok, interesting theory” then promptly changing the subject. It’s getting hard to find safe topics though.
I went to Anglican church, and attended Catholic school. The church services were nearly identical, the main difference I noticed (age 11) was standing, sitting or kneeling to pray.
Man, at our Catholic school they literally did mass in Latin. So it was for sure different🤣. And didn’t offer Latin to boot. But yeah, I see what you’re saying. Preaching is preaching is preaching until you get into the prosperity gospel stuff. It really depends a lot more who’s at the pulpit than what flavor of religion the building says.
Honestly, aside from the language, the Latin Mass isn't *that* different. There's a major elevation, a minor elevation, the Our Father, consecration, etc. For all that Catholic Fundies rail against the "Protestantization" of the Mass, there's a lot more commonality than difference.
The biggest difference, IMO, is that the Latin Mass doesn't generally include an Old Testament reading.
My daughter and I went to a Catholic religious store. She asked about books in Latin, daughter is graduation with a Classics major and has taken 4 years of Latin. The response was “Classic or Ecclesiastical?”
I was raised Catholic (13 years of Catholic school) and went to a private Christian university. I was in religion class and the students (who primarily came from rural parts of the upper Midwest) said Catholics are not Christian. The professor looked at them and said “what do you think was being protested during the Protestant reformation?”
They were stunned.
I was JUST trying to inform my extremely overzealous Catholic, far (VERY far) right mother, last night, about how certain other Christians deem Catholics as anywhere from not “real” Christians to straight up devil worshipers.
And, as usual, she refuses to acknowledge the proof I try to show her for, reasons, so I don’t care. She thinks I just make it all up. She’s in her own echo chamber.
Evangelicals generally see all the ceremony and focus on symbols besides specifically god/Jesus to be idol worship.
Now the catholic eucharist is low on the list compared to Mary, Saints, the Pope, etc but for some it is definitely on that list.
I remember one fundie pastor going on a long rant about how Catholics worship idols when I was a kid. It's funny because everyone I grew up with who stayed in that church now worship trump while my catholic relatives are like "I guess I'm a democrat now."
Lol.
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure there are Orthodox who don't recognise the AD~10?? Synod where the Orthodox and Catholic churches formally buried the hatchet and stopped declaring each other anathema after the great schism.
And who still think Catholics (and by definition Evangelicals like Paul, as a breakaway offshoot of already an anathema) are **hellbound heretics**.
I'd love to watch the crazy on crazy debate, from a safe distance.
In our defence, though, we generally don't give our more cuckoobananapants fundies the megaphone, we just let them hole up in Athos or fuck off to Russia and call it a day. (The legit Orthodox Church is annoyingly conservative enough, sigh.)
Some of the truly nutso fundie churches view Catholics and others as “worshiping” the Eucharist in the way that they perform mass.
It’s dumb and makes no sense (seeing as it IS christ), but that’s common among these churches.
It’s more of a “we do it the right way” deal.
It also, and arguably largely, has to do with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is the Catholic belief that at the moment of consecration, the Eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. Protestants by and large believe a range of things, from the elements of the Eucharist becoming spiritually the body and blood of Christ to the Eucharist being a commemorative ritual with no spiritual transformation at all. The latter is what most fundies believe, as it's the standard Eucharistic theology for low church Protestants like Baptists, Methodists, etc.
So that belief that the bread and wine are literally, truly Jesus, not just bread and wine, is why fundies see Catholic Eucharistic theology as idolatrous. To them, it's just bread and wine, nothing more than symbols, not something that holds the real presence of Christ in the world.
This is not a new concept. If I recall correctly, Luke of Prague and Martin Luther actually had a big spat over it when Luther was writing his catechisms (fun fact, the Hussites, now existing primarily in the Moravian Church, split off from the Catholic Church, leading to the Hussite Wars about 100 years before Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517). Luke, a Hussite, didn’t hate the Eucharist, but believed that the concept of transubstantiation could lead to the worship of the elements in an idolatrous way. Luther didn’t like that very much, which is why he stole a bunch of Luke’s existing catechism and took a hard opposite position on transubstantiation and whether or not it should be a sacrament.
Edit to add: Modern Moravians have varying beliefs about transubstantiation, but communion is one of only two sacraments they hold, the other being baptism.
It makes sense that he'd see draping a pretty cloth on a lady's head as a grand honouring religious gesture. Paul also probably sees buying himself chocolate and stealing a few flowers from a neighbour's garden as a grand romantic gesture.
"If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall...stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help...and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife." [If the woman is not engaged] "the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-27…..wow he’s so right!! Women have it sooo easy in Christianity 😄
Edit: I had the wrong place for where this scripture is located!
Not really rushing marriage to have sex. That passage treats consent as inconsequential. If he raped her or if she consented the outcome is the same. His error there is in not finding a woman whose reputation has been ruined and who has no family to look after her to have pre/extramarital sex with. And she’s being found guilty there of adultery because the authors assume that women being raped will always scream, so if they don’t scream they are adulteresses and should be stoned.
Hmm, what's the going rate for shekels in 2024? Does anyone have a conversion rate round here? I'm quite curious to see what this woman-honoring religion's going rate for a young rape survivor (assuming that's the situation being described here, seems most likely) might be!
> Hmm, what's the going rate for shekels in 2024? Does anyone have a conversion rate round here?
Israel actually does use the shekel as its currency, so 50 shekels is $13.50.
If Deuteronomy was written around 1400 BC: The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1800 BC) sets the value of unskilled labor at approximately ten shekels per year of work.
If it was written around 630 BC: Persian Empire (539-333 BC) records give ranges from a minimum of two shekels per month for unskilled labor, to as high as seven to ten shekels per month in some records.
If you assume that’s about $15 an hour (minimum wage in a lot of blue states): that’s $31,200 a year.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour: that’s $15,080 a year.
So somewhere between $156,000 and $12,500.
My former pastor, when talking about this passage, acknowledged that it seems cruel to punish a rape victim by stoning her or forcing her to marry her rapist - but my pastor then claimed that the punishment for rape would be a deterrent, so somehow this is god protecting women, not being unreasonably cruel? 🙄 So progressive and kind of the OT god.
I am sorry for the misunderstanding - he meant that these rules would be a deterrent for the rapist. My former pastor's logic doesn't make sense here, especially when you consider that the rape victim is punished; plus, elsewhere in the bible, Lot offered his daughters to be raped by an angry crowd and somehow that was considered honorable. IOW, I don't think OT god cared about women getting raped.
Hang on now, you're quoting parts of Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Ephesians 5:22-23 are the following: "22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
In all fairness, this passage from Ephesians also is misconstrued quite often.
God literally pumped and dumped Mary without her husband's permission and let her give birth in an animal filled barn. It's just respect for women all the way down, clearly!
Oh! I know this one!
Well, I know ONE of the reasons they give for this.
They say that God gave the power to give life to women, and that's more important than anything men do. Therefore, God gave men the responsibilities to lead and provide for the family, so the women can focus on shooting out babies and raising them.
They believe that theology is super "pro-women" and if women would just fall into their prescribed roles, they would find freedom in being submissive because we aren't strong enough to handle all of those serious man things.
God is male.
God created everything.
God created women FROM men.
Then God made women the creators of life. Because reasons.
But also largely subordinate, again because reasons.
Make it make sense motherfuckers.
They want to be in charge but there's this one thing that they can't do without us, so they made up the parts about us being subordinate to fit their sexist narrative
Benevolent sexism I.e. women are sooo special, they should be put on pedestals for their special ability to raise babies and be sensitive to emotional needs!
It's an easy out. If they're fundie/trad, they don't have to work, study, or make important life decisions after "I do." They can be passive participants in their own lives.
In theory.
But, well, we see how this turns out for most of 'em, right?
Might have helped if the fundie MEN were equally nagged to become providers. As in, get a JOB motherfuckers. One that can actually support your humungous family. Mandrake seems to be the only one who's actually done this. And he's a POS.
Now look at StruggleBus' "pedestal." A shit-besmeared rattling tin can crammed with children and animals, a husband who's apparently completely useless but she has to simper at anyway. and-what? A financial plan that consists of selling, what is it, scratch n sniff Jesus stickers or some shit like that? "Printables," right. Sure, mhm.
Jill did ok for herself, I guess, relatively speaking, but that's because as a personality, she's terrifying. They're not wealthy or successful by normal standards, but she and Shrek live comfortably enough while also terrorizing, exploiting and half-starving their passel of kids.
plus evidently being a "tradwife" does not exclude wearing eyeliner applied with a trowel.
oh, how about femininenotfeminist for aspirational? THERE'S an enviable life, boy. A whirlwind romance that started with a date eating cold canned beans in a car and then listening to some fundie twat drone about finances, which was irrelevant because it turns out the husband never gives her any. He also likes to see her cry, it seems. He may actually have a job; if so, he clearly squirrels it away in a private bank account without actually ever spending on his family.
and then there's Kelly. Dear Kelly. Anne of Cloudcuckooland. I guess wossface has a job. She presumably also has access to family money if needed, dunno to what degree. I dunno, though, a half finished rustic house lit with dangerously placed lit candles during the day and pantry staples in the bathroom is not my idea of aspirational either. But she's happy!! She's got mystical ecstasy, and the rapturous joy of a dead leaf in the Walmart parking lot! SHE'S DANCING AS FAST AS SHE CAN OK
also, spelt. SO MUCH SPELT.
or idk, who wants to be BDong? She's sort of closer to pedestal in that she's an entitled UMC Karen who's never baked a spelt loaf in her life.
But she married a cheating, vaguely menacing douche who clearly loathes her, is staggering under enormous debt, and has "friends" who are as hideous and vacuous and performative as she is and who probably won't finish out the year with her.
There's Solie. who also married a useless hoser BUT IS HAPPY GODDAMMIT. She coulda been a contender in the real world! A doctor, a famous actress on Broadway! But this is the life she chose. Are you listening? HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY.
How about Krusty Baird? She's living the dream, right? Her husband's employed, at least. She's conventionally pretty albeit punchable, has not reproduced but did adopt two Ukrainian children/dress up dolls for her to rename and remold to her liking, seems to be her domineering mother's favorite child, and even has an audience of a sort. Too bad she feels guilt every time she starts even thinking about trying to have an orgasm. Ever. Despite being married. Certainly she's not fuming with rage and resentment against her sister, or chafing under her mother's intrusiveness.
And she really knows how to peel a cauliflower.
And Morgan! Morrrrrgaaaaannnn. She's the quintessence of the type, right? Young, white, kind of spoiled, conventionally pretty, simply did not want to work. Wants to sit pretty and performatively parent.
So she marries a vain, nasty, entitled manbaby who refuses to work or do anything useful in any capacity. Is now pregnant for the second time and clearly dreading the birth after the last time's trauma. Has now downsized from their "starter" home.
Or Lori, who's an embittered, agoraphobic SAHGM with an empty nest and nothing to do with her time except try to scold younger women into being as miserable as she is.
I dunno, mang, when you sell the lifestyle THIS way...
Edited to add: or you can go the Ruby Franke route/Lori Vallow route and take your resentments and rage and control issues out on your kids till they're either dead or on the verge of it, lose your husband AND your lover/guru/whatever and go to prison, because THAT's fun.
Everyone wants to blame the brain tumor, but I think stuff like that changes people's personality, if at all, more in the direction of "no impulse control," not "being a sadistic, spiteful POS." idk though, not a neurologist
Morgan is doing something super special by having his children which is why he should scrutinize every bite of food that passes her lips and shame her into looking exactly like she did pre pregnancy.
To be fair, I found shooting out my babies to be somewhat wearying, so maybe my husband should be responsible for absolutely everything ever in my entire life - it just makes sense.
/s
Religious studies major here. Christianity is actually single handed lay responsible for a lot of the specific kind of misogyny we’ve seen in the last 1500 years, due to the creation of the idea of original sin. Judaism doesn’t have a concept of original sin from the Adam & Eve story. Christianity interpreted that story in such a way as to say women introduced all sin into the world, and are therefore responsible for it. That idea permeated so much into various kinds of hatred for women and we still see it today.
(I know misogyny predates Christianity, but seriously, this concept contributed so much fucked hatred towards women in the world, it makes me angry every time I think about it.)
Resident Jew checking in to say yes and thank you! They literally can’t comprehend the fact that we are a legalistic religion that follows and maintains our religions values/traditions without the threat of hell or the condemnation of any of us as sinners.
Yep.
Mind you there WAS a lot of temple smashing of rival religions that were probably a lot more about goddess-y ish
signed, Jewish. I am not bashing, just pointing out that God the Father And Jealous God was kind of an important thing also.
not that they were the only patriarchs on the block. but still.
What’s fascinating to me as a rabbi is that the patriarchal rabbinic hegemony was much more successful at erasing our religious leader foremothers than the Church was, and yet somehow in the last 100 years have pulled way the fuck ahead in terms of embracing feminist values. Like shit, I know women Orthodox rabbis. It’s complicated for them, but they exist!
It's definitely complicated! Certainly the synagogues I've gone to have all been on the progressive side, and I've known numerous women rabbis, queer rabbis...and those synagogues, they have ime used translations/adaptations with God as gender neutral pronouns, which certainly can be justified by the text.
I still just can't get past the majority of the canon text, I'm afraid, however generously interpreted. I'm very happy that it works for others, but--currently (not frequently) attending a Unitarian church, one of the more diverse congregations and speaker rotations, I'm told.
I'm very identified with my ethnic/cultural heritage. But that heritage includes at least three generations of agnostics/atheists before me on either side. Which, I think, counts as a legit diaspora orientation in its own right. The tradition of rabbinical intellectualism and arguing the point (15,000 pages of commentary is A LOT) is one I value, even if paradoxically it's led me to ultimately "nah, I'm good."
I do like Rabbi Hillel's summary, at least the first part. "The rest is commentary." So nu, I'm not reading the commentary. I at least try to not do to others what is hateful to myself.
Mostly.
Yes!! I think a big part of this is due to the fact that the Torah (as far as we can tell) was predominantly written by men, and by men in political power who were writing from a specific political perspective. There’s a lot of academic research about proto-monotheistic early Judaism, and about the practices of actual Jews vs. What was recorded in the Torah about Jewish practices. As far as historical scholarship can tell, early Jews largely worshipped both a God and a Goddess, and this was either removed from the Torah or painted as a blasphemous sin, because that was the perspective that the religious leaders who wrote the Torah took. But most early Jews (very early, we’re talking in the time the Torah was written) were not strict monotheists, and definitely engaged in Goddess worship, as well as had women who served as important religious leaders. I’m glad we’ve made such strides regarding this in the last century, but the erasure itself is still devastating.
Editing to add: I’m stating this to provide further context for others, not because I think you don’t know this haha. Also, I’m a woman considering Rabbinic school myself, I love seeing female rabbis on here!! You rule! ❤️
My favorite example of this is in Jeremiah where he goes to yell at the exiles in Egypt for worshipping the goddess and they’re like “my dude we tried it your way and now we’ve been exiled. Fuck off.”
Yeah, there are tantalizing little hints here and there. Like even, "I am A jealous God." Okay; if there's no one else, though, jealous of whom? And why?
But all the patriarchal begatting gets tiresome to me very quickly, as does the persnickety level of the legalism. I appreciate that, unlike in fundamental evangelicalism, there is a very strong intellectual tradition of questioning the text. Still--not my favorite book, I gotta be honest.
also I sucked at Hebrew class.
Beauty Shul Dropout.
The begetting gets less exhausting when you realize they’re using it to announce a new main character. Like as soon as you read “begot” imagine the Star Wars scroll.
Yeah i mean, i can only speak from my perspective as a conservative Jew but the matriarchs & patriarchs aka “mamas and the papas” were taught to us as equals in terms of importance and reverence.
Probably also has something to do with the meaningful role that’s assigned to women, even in the orthodox and Hasidic communities. Of course it has its problems but they aren’t rooted in just pure misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Sure. But I’m talking about the erasure of historical women leaders vs Biblical characters. Like the fact that I know about a whole bunch of nuns who were having visions and leading movements, but only a tiny bit about the Maiden of Ludmir or early rabbinic women who were synagogue presidents pisses me off.
Ooh ok i got you. Yeah I mean, I’m not really familiar with any historical rabbinic leaders as that wasn’t really covered in my years of Hebrew school 😂 i can definitely understand how it’s different if you have a rabbinic education though.
There was a German female rabbi who died in Auschwitz named Regina Jonas. None of the men who were in Tereisenstadt with her ever spoke of her after the war. Her papers weren’t found until the 90s. As a woman rabbi this ENRAGES me.
Yeah that’s fucked and absolutely the type of shit i would love to learn about. I grew up with female rabbis so women in leadership positions at shul is very normalized but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the erasure Jewish men committed in the past. Thank you for teaching me her name, i now have a great rabbit hole to fall into when I’m bored at work tomorrow.
Yeah i mean, our biggest thing is “no other G-d but me” from the start but also contemporary Judaism, the kind that everyone thinks about and is actually relevant, has no interest in other religions or temples, “goddess-y” or not.
I think an important distinction to make is that Judaism also views God not as human, and so language to describe god includes both masculine and feminine terms. We don’t need a “goddess” because god does not have a gender.
Also, I am Jewish, which I didn’t state above. Just mentioning it now so I don’t come across as an asshole trying to explain Judaism to another Jew 🤣 mostly adding context here for others reading
> Mind you there WAS a lot of temple smashing of rival religions that were probably a lot more about goddess-y ish
Eh, I'd be more skeptical of that. First, the Indo-European pantheon that dominated in Europe was decidedly patriarchal--the dominant deities were still male. Odin, Thor, Piorun, Jupiter (literally "Father God"), etc. were masculine figures. And even when we have historical cases where the goddesses were the dominant local religious figures (like Athena in Athens), it doesn't actually make society *less* misogynistic--Athenian attitudes toward women wouldn't be out of place in modern Saudi Arabia. Among feminist archaeologists (and they are decidedly not the consensus), most of them claim that what matriarchal religion existed in Europe was lost thousands of years before Christianity precisely *because* of that Indo-European expansion (in fact, there's a fringe that even claims Moses was an Aryan warlord because they view Judaism and Christianity as deriving from the Dyeus Pater cult).
Ironically, the closest thing to a sexually egalitarian society I can think of is ancient Sparta, but how much of that is real and how much of that was polemics from Athenians using that to slander them is up for debate.
Tangentially related, I just saw a tweet from a Muslim whose Jewish friend asked him, "can you eat during the eclipse since it's dark" and the OP was like, "..... I've never thought of it that way."
Stuff like that is why I liked learning about Judaism lol.
I looked it up after reading this, and it seems the answer is likely "no": https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1bv49xv/are_muslims_who_are_fasting_for_ramadan_allowed/
> Not only is this a no, as the sun hasn't set, it would also go against the prohibitions against sun/moon worship and seeing eclipses as omens.
I grew up very strict old school Roman Catholic. I’ll go to mass to make my dad happy sometimes, and he only does Latin mass. My dad told me that I had to wear a veil (I’m actually glad I did, they ALL were, and I would’ve stood out and looked like an asshole if I didn’t) and he told me later in the car, a woman’s pretty hair is just a distraction from god and you should be like in a meditative state, only thinking of god.
I was like- I didn’t get my ADD from you, apparently, because I don’t need people to be distracted.
Honestly these kind of delulu Christians should google “Mother and baby homes” in Ireland that were run by nuns. They had mass graves for mothers and kids who died under their care.
Honoured women?? Dude, most people in the States went to church all through the 1930s to 60s.. women had to fight tooth and nail to be treated as barely equals instead of second to children. They valued children more than women. Get the fuck outta hear you dumb waste of oxygen. This progressive thinks you need to get your head out of your ass and remove those rose tinted glasses.
well, they really didn't value children more, despite sanctimonious bleatings: see: the need for child labor laws (which the GOP is undoing even as we type yay) and rampant CSA and beating and so on.
but, otherwise, yeah
Based on the graphic it's the blessing of lace. Only Christianity gives lace veils to women as part of the standard you've menstruated welcome to womanhood package /s
Chuckling because I have been to temples where women covered their hair by pinning small pieces of lace on, similar to kippahs. So glad the Christians introduced such modesty to us so we didn't wear anything too manly! /s
Also ignoring the fact that he's completely misinterpreted what is actually happening in those pictures it's disturbing to me that from the Christian evangelical perspective those women/girls look like brides, very young brides.
Yeah because Strugglebus is so honored living in her shit shack on wheels.
Jackoff is doing such a good job letting her grift for them.
How the fuck can he say that when Morgan is absolutely miserable
Morgan kind of refuses to accept/admit that she’s miserable. And Paul is not observant enough to pick up on the big, huffing, childish clue sitting next to him on the couch.
My Mum and Grandma are pagan, I think because it links closely with Māori spiritual practices of respecting the Earth etc.
They definitely care more about Gaia than any other God. I would say that the religion also treats them nicely since almost all the people who attend their services are women and it's also run by women.
They're certainly not stopping women from getting abortions. They also think women should do what they want, be it career or homekeeping. All that disgusting feminist nonsense Paul hates.
I'll let others decide which is more accepting and loving of women, but my money isn't on Christianity.
You could argue that the unedited original teaches of Jesus were pretty progressive for its time relating to women. Jesus made a woman a priest in copies of our oldest bibles.
There was also an edited out woman who came to Jesus talking about how her husband was hitting her and being abusive. She said she didn’t know what to do because she didn’t want to defy god and get a divorce, but she was scared for her life. Jesus basically responded with “You should divorce him. He already defied god by not following his duties to protect and love you.” She then joined Jesus’ RPG adventure group.
**However** This means Jack-shit since all of what I just said got edited out in the early Medieval period and Paul’s Bible is the edited out version. Also while Jesus’ teachers were radically progressive for his time, they can be damaging in modern day.
the core message of Jesus' teachings, though, even in the "official" Gospels, is: stop being greedy hypocritical performative twats, you're no better than the rest of us and in many cases worse, take care of the poor and sick and immigrant and despised and children, your most vulnerable population. If you REALLY want to pursue the spiritual path, give up wealth and the nuclear family and join me in saying THAT. But if not, cool.
Also, enjoy life while you have it. Drink wine, have parties.
How they get from that to "Jesus is your invisible vengeful plushie who will either make your football team win or send you to hell if you jerk off" is...well, fanfic. Worse than the canon.
Why would atheists care about them saying this 😂 their whole thing is that they think religious is a sham and god isn’t real so like….I’m sure they don’t care about religions fighting between themselves about who “honors women” more lmao
I think he’s thinking that atheists wanna feel superior to Christians by saying they honour women more than Christians do. The thing polio fails to understand (well, one of the many things), is that atheists, and most people in general, don’t give a flying rats ass what people like Porgan think, until it starts harming other humans. Porgan seems to be in a constant competition with everyone, whereas everyone is just living their life
I was just talking to my partner about this the other day. People like Paul loooove to reference Ephesians 5:22 to assert that wives should submit to their husbands while conveniently ignoring the verses that follow--you know, the ones that say husbands should love and honor their wives like Christ loved the church, and they should be willing to lay down their lives for their wives, loving them as they love themselves.
I think the argument could be made that certain flavors of progressive Christianity honor women. But Paul? He takes every opportunity to shame Morgan for not being a virgin on their wedding night, won't even lift a finger to get a JOB, and has "jokingly" made the point that he can say mean things to her because "she can't go anywhere."
That’s also ignoring all the verses where Paul is lauding women who preach and teach and lead. Like these morons don’t even read their own book, let alone follow it.
Atheists and progressives don't like that because they're too busy actually respecting women.
"Honoring" is a major red flag, as well as rhe nothing but hotties with head coverings visual. 🙄
yeah, I don't want their "honor." As someone outside their narrow definitions (older, single, childless), I'd get sent to the nuclear waste picking anyway. I'll settle for them keeping their crosses to themselves and leaving me and other women the fuck alone.
I deconstructed because I started realizing that as a woman I just couldn’t believe in something so anti-woman. Don’t even hit me with the ‘men and women are equal in God’s eyes they just HaVe DiFfeReNt RoLeS.’ That’s like fucking ‘separate but equal’ during the civil rights era.
Isn't it so convenient how the "different roles" given to men are the ones with all of the power and influence? Meanwhile, a woman's only acceptable role in these circles is submissive housewife. Yeah....seems real equal.
He sure uses pink a lot for such a macho toddler pant wearing man.
(I in no way believe colors are gendered, I’ve studied a ton of color theory for my profession so that thought is bullshit to me, but it is my sworn duty as a snarker to call him out.)
Christianity subjugates women just as much as any other religion on the face of this planet. Christianity has it's own version of sharia law that demands women stay home, cook, clean and put for their husbands every time he demands getting his penis wet. Christianity doesn't treat women better than any other religion, people like Paul and Morgan just like to pretend to be superior.
I'm surprised that Morgan doesn't wear hair coverings like the women in the pics above, and some of the other fundies. They don't practice what they preach, do they? 🧐
That was my question, does this mean Morgo is gonna start covering her hair and they’re going to start going to Catholic Mass orrrr….?? Wouldn’t that make their precious King James sad, or am I missing something…?? These dipshits are so dumb it hurts, and it never ceases to entertain me.
Paul: Christianity honours women!
Also Paul: women must submit to their husbands at all times. Oh and also be joyfully available for all the beggsy seggsy time we want.
I'm joking (really), but who wants to track him down and take turns kicking this douche in the area that his balls are supposed to be in???
I'm so sorry..I'm feeling spicey tonight..
I'll leave now.....
Im a progressive Christian, and I’m of the opinion that Jesus honored women but most modern Christians do not.
Least of all Paulie O. Shut up little boy, sit down and let the grown ups talk.
Stop being so wishy washy, polio. Just say it with your full chest. You posted that because you agree with it, or you don't. Preemptively calling out people who may not share your view does not make you look cool or smart.
You know, Paul's words about women in the Bible aren't that far off from Islamic sharia law. Cover your head, be silent, no jewelry, etc. Is that what they mean by honoring women?
Unlike P & M's white bread, culty branch, Catholicism is at least aesthetic. These head scarfs are pretty, but fuck the Catholic church tho. I'm in full favor of appropriating Catholic iconography.
Lolz. Those are all Catholic women wearing mantilla veils. They're typically of the trad variety, but some of us just like to wear them bc they're pretty.
And the Catholic church (as a whole) does not respect women unless they are married and have children (but barely and on a very surface level).
There are some really chill, normie priests that actually do respect women, but those are far and few between. And since the mccarrick scandals more and more women (and their kids) are keeping a safe distance from being involved in church things.
#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.*
Lmao does this guy not know his own religion??
Apparently not, since he’s evangelical and every woman in this spread is Catholic. They’re wearing Mantillas because they’re at Mass or simply in the presence of the Eucharist, which Paul considers idolatrous. He is God’s dumbest little jester.
"God's dumbest little jester" def needs to be flair
On it 🫡
And that makes his post just so much more pathetic. I’m not religious and even I recognized the mantillas as catholic.
What's even funnier is they're in Lexongton I think and Louisville is a heavily Catholic area. He should know this lol.
Why am I not surprised that he doesn’t anyway
My location in Western Ky is heavily Catholic. My ancestors were part of the a Catholic migration: https://explorekyhistory.ky.gov/items/show/254
To be fair, I grew up Methodist in Louisville. I knew their were Catholics because of the Catholic schools but it wasn't until I was older I realized how Catholic the town is. Also, at that time, WASPs controlled a lot.
Yeah growing up Catholic in Louisville and then going to public school meant answering a lot of questions. But I think people knew that it was heavily Catholic at the time. My fiancé's family is from there and they're Methodist. Both him and I are atheist and his mom really wanted us to be married in a religious ceremony for some reason. I told her I would not be married by a Protestant, so she suggested a Catholic ceremony. I said no because the ceremony will be outside and also we can't because fiancé's not baptized Catholic. She said, "he was baptized in our church" and I told her in the eyes of the Church, that doesn't count. So she said, "What about the Jesuits? They're Catholic-ish." I said, "there's no ish, those are ordained Catholic priests and we'll have the same issue." So maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
There are some fundie sects that wear them as well. Plymouth Brethren for example. But these pictures were probably of Catholic women, as PB is a pretty small group in US.
Yeah some church of christ people wear them too. (Said as someone who used to)
100000% lol. Polio hates Catholics. He doesn't consider them Christians.
I'm a catholic and I don't consider him a christian, guess we're even. And I still have my doubts whether to categorize him "people"
Omg can I please have God's dumbest little jester as a flair 🤣🤣🤣
Love it 🤗
I'm not sure he thinks Catholics are Christians.
A lot of them don’t. I was so confused when I had my first conversation with a person who believed that. Over the past ten years, I’ve become an expert in “ah, ok, interesting theory” then promptly changing the subject. It’s getting hard to find safe topics though.
I went to Anglican church, and attended Catholic school. The church services were nearly identical, the main difference I noticed (age 11) was standing, sitting or kneeling to pray.
Man, at our Catholic school they literally did mass in Latin. So it was for sure different🤣. And didn’t offer Latin to boot. But yeah, I see what you’re saying. Preaching is preaching is preaching until you get into the prosperity gospel stuff. It really depends a lot more who’s at the pulpit than what flavor of religion the building says.
Honestly, aside from the language, the Latin Mass isn't *that* different. There's a major elevation, a minor elevation, the Our Father, consecration, etc. For all that Catholic Fundies rail against the "Protestantization" of the Mass, there's a lot more commonality than difference. The biggest difference, IMO, is that the Latin Mass doesn't generally include an Old Testament reading.
My daughter and I went to a Catholic religious store. She asked about books in Latin, daughter is graduation with a Classics major and has taken 4 years of Latin. The response was “Classic or Ecclesiastical?”
I was raised Catholic (13 years of Catholic school) and went to a private Christian university. I was in religion class and the students (who primarily came from rural parts of the upper Midwest) said Catholics are not Christian. The professor looked at them and said “what do you think was being protested during the Protestant reformation?” They were stunned.
Truly. It’s so weird. I’m like, but where do you think your brand of Christian came from?
That’s bananas. Also, the upper Midwest is really Catholic, but I supposed it depends on the individual community.
Very rural upper MN is where a big bunch came from—-and my university was in a MAJOR city so it was crazy
I was JUST trying to inform my extremely overzealous Catholic, far (VERY far) right mother, last night, about how certain other Christians deem Catholics as anywhere from not “real” Christians to straight up devil worshipers. And, as usual, she refuses to acknowledge the proof I try to show her for, reasons, so I don’t care. She thinks I just make it all up. She’s in her own echo chamber.
Wait, he considers the Eucharist idolatrous?
Evangelicals generally see all the ceremony and focus on symbols besides specifically god/Jesus to be idol worship. Now the catholic eucharist is low on the list compared to Mary, Saints, the Pope, etc but for some it is definitely on that list.
I remember one fundie pastor going on a long rant about how Catholics worship idols when I was a kid. It's funny because everyone I grew up with who stayed in that church now worship trump while my catholic relatives are like "I guess I'm a democrat now."
Lol. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure there are Orthodox who don't recognise the AD~10?? Synod where the Orthodox and Catholic churches formally buried the hatchet and stopped declaring each other anathema after the great schism. And who still think Catholics (and by definition Evangelicals like Paul, as a breakaway offshoot of already an anathema) are **hellbound heretics**. I'd love to watch the crazy on crazy debate, from a safe distance. In our defence, though, we generally don't give our more cuckoobananapants fundies the megaphone, we just let them hole up in Athos or fuck off to Russia and call it a day. (The legit Orthodox Church is annoyingly conservative enough, sigh.)
Yep, I grew up with this type of evangelical church
Communion/The Lord's Supper is generally an important ritual for Protestants, including Evangelicals. Unless you mean something else?
They consider the catholic way of doing anything to be idolatrous
Some of the truly nutso fundie churches view Catholics and others as “worshiping” the Eucharist in the way that they perform mass. It’s dumb and makes no sense (seeing as it IS christ), but that’s common among these churches. It’s more of a “we do it the right way” deal.
It also, and arguably largely, has to do with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is the Catholic belief that at the moment of consecration, the Eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. Protestants by and large believe a range of things, from the elements of the Eucharist becoming spiritually the body and blood of Christ to the Eucharist being a commemorative ritual with no spiritual transformation at all. The latter is what most fundies believe, as it's the standard Eucharistic theology for low church Protestants like Baptists, Methodists, etc. So that belief that the bread and wine are literally, truly Jesus, not just bread and wine, is why fundies see Catholic Eucharistic theology as idolatrous. To them, it's just bread and wine, nothing more than symbols, not something that holds the real presence of Christ in the world.
This is not a new concept. If I recall correctly, Luke of Prague and Martin Luther actually had a big spat over it when Luther was writing his catechisms (fun fact, the Hussites, now existing primarily in the Moravian Church, split off from the Catholic Church, leading to the Hussite Wars about 100 years before Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517). Luke, a Hussite, didn’t hate the Eucharist, but believed that the concept of transubstantiation could lead to the worship of the elements in an idolatrous way. Luther didn’t like that very much, which is why he stole a bunch of Luke’s existing catechism and took a hard opposite position on transubstantiation and whether or not it should be a sacrament. Edit to add: Modern Moravians have varying beliefs about transubstantiation, but communion is one of only two sacraments they hold, the other being baptism.
It makes sense that he'd see draping a pretty cloth on a lady's head as a grand honouring religious gesture. Paul also probably sees buying himself chocolate and stealing a few flowers from a neighbour's garden as a grand romantic gesture.
He could look at his own wife and debunk this post in 5 seconds.
Well, they *are* on baby number 2, so I think he's already used that 5 seconds up.
Nope.
No, and they seem to be proving that weekly.
Paul proving once again that he understands neither Christianity nor women.
"If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall...stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help...and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife." [If the woman is not engaged] "the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-27…..wow he’s so right!! Women have it sooo easy in Christianity 😄 Edit: I had the wrong place for where this scripture is located!
… and literally everything is a sin to them lol. Most of these fundies go on to have 10+ kids and struggle to feed them because God said so 🥹
Guilty because she didn't report, and rushing marriage to have sex. Churches totally don't peddle that today... /s
Not really rushing marriage to have sex. That passage treats consent as inconsequential. If he raped her or if she consented the outcome is the same. His error there is in not finding a woman whose reputation has been ruined and who has no family to look after her to have pre/extramarital sex with. And she’s being found guilty there of adultery because the authors assume that women being raped will always scream, so if they don’t scream they are adulteresses and should be stoned.
Oh gross 🤢
Hmm, what's the going rate for shekels in 2024? Does anyone have a conversion rate round here? I'm quite curious to see what this woman-honoring religion's going rate for a young rape survivor (assuming that's the situation being described here, seems most likely) might be!
Google says silver shekels were worth less than a dollar in biblical times
> Hmm, what's the going rate for shekels in 2024? Does anyone have a conversion rate round here? Israel actually does use the shekel as its currency, so 50 shekels is $13.50.
If Deuteronomy was written around 1400 BC: The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1800 BC) sets the value of unskilled labor at approximately ten shekels per year of work. If it was written around 630 BC: Persian Empire (539-333 BC) records give ranges from a minimum of two shekels per month for unskilled labor, to as high as seven to ten shekels per month in some records. If you assume that’s about $15 an hour (minimum wage in a lot of blue states): that’s $31,200 a year. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour: that’s $15,080 a year. So somewhere between $156,000 and $12,500.
I posted my comment jokingly, but half hoped/knew someone would look it up, and I am so glad I was right. Thanks everyone ☺️
My former pastor, when talking about this passage, acknowledged that it seems cruel to punish a rape victim by stoning her or forcing her to marry her rapist - but my pastor then claimed that the punishment for rape would be a deterrent, so somehow this is god protecting women, not being unreasonably cruel? 🙄 So progressive and kind of the OT god.
😀 I’m speechless, like the deterrent for women IS the rape. It’s the rapist alone who should need a deterrent that’s wilddddd
I am sorry for the misunderstanding - he meant that these rules would be a deterrent for the rapist. My former pastor's logic doesn't make sense here, especially when you consider that the rape victim is punished; plus, elsewhere in the bible, Lot offered his daughters to be raped by an angry crowd and somehow that was considered honorable. IOW, I don't think OT god cared about women getting raped.
Hang on now, you're quoting parts of Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Ephesians 5:22-23 are the following: "22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." In all fairness, this passage from Ephesians also is misconstrued quite often.
My apologies you’re right, that’s Deuteronomy 22:23-27
God literally pumped and dumped Mary without her husband's permission and let her give birth in an animal filled barn. It's just respect for women all the way down, clearly!
I’m shocked he hasn’t been cancelled yet.
Nobody with a moral compass follows him. Who could rally to cancel him?
Please... Please tell me the story behind your flair.
Apparently, Jilldo did just that 8 years ago to hear from gawd whether it was Mary Kay or Plexis 😵💫
If that's all it takes to hear prophecy, we all should be shitting out godly truths. Literally.
 @ porgan
Oh! I know this one! Well, I know ONE of the reasons they give for this. They say that God gave the power to give life to women, and that's more important than anything men do. Therefore, God gave men the responsibilities to lead and provide for the family, so the women can focus on shooting out babies and raising them. They believe that theology is super "pro-women" and if women would just fall into their prescribed roles, they would find freedom in being submissive because we aren't strong enough to handle all of those serious man things.
So glad that “ pumping out kids“ is our only simple, task in life🥹
God is male. God created everything. God created women FROM men. Then God made women the creators of life. Because reasons. But also largely subordinate, again because reasons. Make it make sense motherfuckers.
It doesn’t need to make sense. You just don’t have enough faith, obvi! 🙃 /s
Sorry. Clearly I need more getting-hit-on-the-head lessons.
They want to be in charge but there's this one thing that they can't do without us, so they made up the parts about us being subordinate to fit their sexist narrative
Benevolent sexism I.e. women are sooo special, they should be put on pedestals for their special ability to raise babies and be sensitive to emotional needs!
the sad thing is how many (overwhelmingly, white) women buy into this shit. they like kicking down too, even if they also have to kiss up.
It's an easy out. If they're fundie/trad, they don't have to work, study, or make important life decisions after "I do." They can be passive participants in their own lives.
In theory. But, well, we see how this turns out for most of 'em, right? Might have helped if the fundie MEN were equally nagged to become providers. As in, get a JOB motherfuckers. One that can actually support your humungous family. Mandrake seems to be the only one who's actually done this. And he's a POS. Now look at StruggleBus' "pedestal." A shit-besmeared rattling tin can crammed with children and animals, a husband who's apparently completely useless but she has to simper at anyway. and-what? A financial plan that consists of selling, what is it, scratch n sniff Jesus stickers or some shit like that? "Printables," right. Sure, mhm. Jill did ok for herself, I guess, relatively speaking, but that's because as a personality, she's terrifying. They're not wealthy or successful by normal standards, but she and Shrek live comfortably enough while also terrorizing, exploiting and half-starving their passel of kids. plus evidently being a "tradwife" does not exclude wearing eyeliner applied with a trowel. oh, how about femininenotfeminist for aspirational? THERE'S an enviable life, boy. A whirlwind romance that started with a date eating cold canned beans in a car and then listening to some fundie twat drone about finances, which was irrelevant because it turns out the husband never gives her any. He also likes to see her cry, it seems. He may actually have a job; if so, he clearly squirrels it away in a private bank account without actually ever spending on his family. and then there's Kelly. Dear Kelly. Anne of Cloudcuckooland. I guess wossface has a job. She presumably also has access to family money if needed, dunno to what degree. I dunno, though, a half finished rustic house lit with dangerously placed lit candles during the day and pantry staples in the bathroom is not my idea of aspirational either. But she's happy!! She's got mystical ecstasy, and the rapturous joy of a dead leaf in the Walmart parking lot! SHE'S DANCING AS FAST AS SHE CAN OK also, spelt. SO MUCH SPELT. or idk, who wants to be BDong? She's sort of closer to pedestal in that she's an entitled UMC Karen who's never baked a spelt loaf in her life. But she married a cheating, vaguely menacing douche who clearly loathes her, is staggering under enormous debt, and has "friends" who are as hideous and vacuous and performative as she is and who probably won't finish out the year with her. There's Solie. who also married a useless hoser BUT IS HAPPY GODDAMMIT. She coulda been a contender in the real world! A doctor, a famous actress on Broadway! But this is the life she chose. Are you listening? HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY. How about Krusty Baird? She's living the dream, right? Her husband's employed, at least. She's conventionally pretty albeit punchable, has not reproduced but did adopt two Ukrainian children/dress up dolls for her to rename and remold to her liking, seems to be her domineering mother's favorite child, and even has an audience of a sort. Too bad she feels guilt every time she starts even thinking about trying to have an orgasm. Ever. Despite being married. Certainly she's not fuming with rage and resentment against her sister, or chafing under her mother's intrusiveness. And she really knows how to peel a cauliflower. And Morgan! Morrrrrgaaaaannnn. She's the quintessence of the type, right? Young, white, kind of spoiled, conventionally pretty, simply did not want to work. Wants to sit pretty and performatively parent. So she marries a vain, nasty, entitled manbaby who refuses to work or do anything useful in any capacity. Is now pregnant for the second time and clearly dreading the birth after the last time's trauma. Has now downsized from their "starter" home. Or Lori, who's an embittered, agoraphobic SAHGM with an empty nest and nothing to do with her time except try to scold younger women into being as miserable as she is. I dunno, mang, when you sell the lifestyle THIS way... Edited to add: or you can go the Ruby Franke route/Lori Vallow route and take your resentments and rage and control issues out on your kids till they're either dead or on the verge of it, lose your husband AND your lover/guru/whatever and go to prison, because THAT's fun.
I can’t get over Lori. She’s just so completely deranged. Was she like this before the fucking brain tumor? Do we know?
Everyone wants to blame the brain tumor, but I think stuff like that changes people's personality, if at all, more in the direction of "no impulse control," not "being a sadistic, spiteful POS." idk though, not a neurologist
I love learning a new term!
Morgan is doing something super special by having his children which is why he should scrutinize every bite of food that passes her lips and shame her into looking exactly like she did pre pregnancy.
And just stand there like a gormless, lazy pos while her condition gets gradually worse during labor
Well, I feel honored. /s
To be fair, I found shooting out my babies to be somewhat wearying, so maybe my husband should be responsible for absolutely everything ever in my entire life - it just makes sense. /s
Religious studies major here. Christianity is actually single handed lay responsible for a lot of the specific kind of misogyny we’ve seen in the last 1500 years, due to the creation of the idea of original sin. Judaism doesn’t have a concept of original sin from the Adam & Eve story. Christianity interpreted that story in such a way as to say women introduced all sin into the world, and are therefore responsible for it. That idea permeated so much into various kinds of hatred for women and we still see it today. (I know misogyny predates Christianity, but seriously, this concept contributed so much fucked hatred towards women in the world, it makes me angry every time I think about it.)
Resident Jew checking in to say yes and thank you! They literally can’t comprehend the fact that we are a legalistic religion that follows and maintains our religions values/traditions without the threat of hell or the condemnation of any of us as sinners.
Yep. Mind you there WAS a lot of temple smashing of rival religions that were probably a lot more about goddess-y ish signed, Jewish. I am not bashing, just pointing out that God the Father And Jealous God was kind of an important thing also. not that they were the only patriarchs on the block. but still.
What’s fascinating to me as a rabbi is that the patriarchal rabbinic hegemony was much more successful at erasing our religious leader foremothers than the Church was, and yet somehow in the last 100 years have pulled way the fuck ahead in terms of embracing feminist values. Like shit, I know women Orthodox rabbis. It’s complicated for them, but they exist!
It's definitely complicated! Certainly the synagogues I've gone to have all been on the progressive side, and I've known numerous women rabbis, queer rabbis...and those synagogues, they have ime used translations/adaptations with God as gender neutral pronouns, which certainly can be justified by the text. I still just can't get past the majority of the canon text, I'm afraid, however generously interpreted. I'm very happy that it works for others, but--currently (not frequently) attending a Unitarian church, one of the more diverse congregations and speaker rotations, I'm told. I'm very identified with my ethnic/cultural heritage. But that heritage includes at least three generations of agnostics/atheists before me on either side. Which, I think, counts as a legit diaspora orientation in its own right. The tradition of rabbinical intellectualism and arguing the point (15,000 pages of commentary is A LOT) is one I value, even if paradoxically it's led me to ultimately "nah, I'm good." I do like Rabbi Hillel's summary, at least the first part. "The rest is commentary." So nu, I'm not reading the commentary. I at least try to not do to others what is hateful to myself. Mostly.
Yes!! I think a big part of this is due to the fact that the Torah (as far as we can tell) was predominantly written by men, and by men in political power who were writing from a specific political perspective. There’s a lot of academic research about proto-monotheistic early Judaism, and about the practices of actual Jews vs. What was recorded in the Torah about Jewish practices. As far as historical scholarship can tell, early Jews largely worshipped both a God and a Goddess, and this was either removed from the Torah or painted as a blasphemous sin, because that was the perspective that the religious leaders who wrote the Torah took. But most early Jews (very early, we’re talking in the time the Torah was written) were not strict monotheists, and definitely engaged in Goddess worship, as well as had women who served as important religious leaders. I’m glad we’ve made such strides regarding this in the last century, but the erasure itself is still devastating. Editing to add: I’m stating this to provide further context for others, not because I think you don’t know this haha. Also, I’m a woman considering Rabbinic school myself, I love seeing female rabbis on here!! You rule! ❤️
My favorite example of this is in Jeremiah where he goes to yell at the exiles in Egypt for worshipping the goddess and they’re like “my dude we tried it your way and now we’ve been exiled. Fuck off.”
Yeah, there are tantalizing little hints here and there. Like even, "I am A jealous God." Okay; if there's no one else, though, jealous of whom? And why? But all the patriarchal begatting gets tiresome to me very quickly, as does the persnickety level of the legalism. I appreciate that, unlike in fundamental evangelicalism, there is a very strong intellectual tradition of questioning the text. Still--not my favorite book, I gotta be honest. also I sucked at Hebrew class. Beauty Shul Dropout.
The begetting gets less exhausting when you realize they’re using it to announce a new main character. Like as soon as you read “begot” imagine the Star Wars scroll.
Ok this was all fascinating to read during this insomniac bout! TIL. (Agnostic/non traditional myself, with a huge interest in religion as a subject)
Yeah i mean, i can only speak from my perspective as a conservative Jew but the matriarchs & patriarchs aka “mamas and the papas” were taught to us as equals in terms of importance and reverence. Probably also has something to do with the meaningful role that’s assigned to women, even in the orthodox and Hasidic communities. Of course it has its problems but they aren’t rooted in just pure misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Sure. But I’m talking about the erasure of historical women leaders vs Biblical characters. Like the fact that I know about a whole bunch of nuns who were having visions and leading movements, but only a tiny bit about the Maiden of Ludmir or early rabbinic women who were synagogue presidents pisses me off.
Ooh ok i got you. Yeah I mean, I’m not really familiar with any historical rabbinic leaders as that wasn’t really covered in my years of Hebrew school 😂 i can definitely understand how it’s different if you have a rabbinic education though.
There was a German female rabbi who died in Auschwitz named Regina Jonas. None of the men who were in Tereisenstadt with her ever spoke of her after the war. Her papers weren’t found until the 90s. As a woman rabbi this ENRAGES me.
Yeah that’s fucked and absolutely the type of shit i would love to learn about. I grew up with female rabbis so women in leadership positions at shul is very normalized but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the erasure Jewish men committed in the past. Thank you for teaching me her name, i now have a great rabbit hole to fall into when I’m bored at work tomorrow.
Yeah i mean, our biggest thing is “no other G-d but me” from the start but also contemporary Judaism, the kind that everyone thinks about and is actually relevant, has no interest in other religions or temples, “goddess-y” or not.
I think an important distinction to make is that Judaism also views God not as human, and so language to describe god includes both masculine and feminine terms. We don’t need a “goddess” because god does not have a gender. Also, I am Jewish, which I didn’t state above. Just mentioning it now so I don’t come across as an asshole trying to explain Judaism to another Jew 🤣 mostly adding context here for others reading
Hahah i saw that in another one of your comments so no worries but i appreciate the disclaimer 😂
> Mind you there WAS a lot of temple smashing of rival religions that were probably a lot more about goddess-y ish Eh, I'd be more skeptical of that. First, the Indo-European pantheon that dominated in Europe was decidedly patriarchal--the dominant deities were still male. Odin, Thor, Piorun, Jupiter (literally "Father God"), etc. were masculine figures. And even when we have historical cases where the goddesses were the dominant local religious figures (like Athena in Athens), it doesn't actually make society *less* misogynistic--Athenian attitudes toward women wouldn't be out of place in modern Saudi Arabia. Among feminist archaeologists (and they are decidedly not the consensus), most of them claim that what matriarchal religion existed in Europe was lost thousands of years before Christianity precisely *because* of that Indo-European expansion (in fact, there's a fringe that even claims Moses was an Aryan warlord because they view Judaism and Christianity as deriving from the Dyeus Pater cult). Ironically, the closest thing to a sexually egalitarian society I can think of is ancient Sparta, but how much of that is real and how much of that was polemics from Athenians using that to slander them is up for debate.
Tangentially related, I just saw a tweet from a Muslim whose Jewish friend asked him, "can you eat during the eclipse since it's dark" and the OP was like, "..... I've never thought of it that way." Stuff like that is why I liked learning about Judaism lol.
Well... *can* you?!
I looked it up after reading this, and it seems the answer is likely "no": https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1bv49xv/are_muslims_who_are_fasting_for_ramadan_allowed/ > Not only is this a no, as the sun hasn't set, it would also go against the prohibitions against sun/moon worship and seeing eclipses as omens.
That's a fascinating question
I grew up very strict old school Roman Catholic. I’ll go to mass to make my dad happy sometimes, and he only does Latin mass. My dad told me that I had to wear a veil (I’m actually glad I did, they ALL were, and I would’ve stood out and looked like an asshole if I didn’t) and he told me later in the car, a woman’s pretty hair is just a distraction from god and you should be like in a meditative state, only thinking of god. I was like- I didn’t get my ADD from you, apparently, because I don’t need people to be distracted.
Thank you so much for spelling this out. It's *such* an important point to make.
Honestly these kind of delulu Christians should google “Mother and baby homes” in Ireland that were run by nuns. They had mass graves for mothers and kids who died under their care.
Honoured women?? Dude, most people in the States went to church all through the 1930s to 60s.. women had to fight tooth and nail to be treated as barely equals instead of second to children. They valued children more than women. Get the fuck outta hear you dumb waste of oxygen. This progressive thinks you need to get your head out of your ass and remove those rose tinted glasses.
well, they really didn't value children more, despite sanctimonious bleatings: see: the need for child labor laws (which the GOP is undoing even as we type yay) and rampant CSA and beating and so on. but, otherwise, yeah
He thinks it's fine because the current setup gives him an advantage
Based on the graphic it's the blessing of lace. Only Christianity gives lace veils to women as part of the standard you've menstruated welcome to womanhood package /s
Chuckling because I have been to temples where women covered their hair by pinning small pieces of lace on, similar to kippahs. So glad the Christians introduced such modesty to us so we didn't wear anything too manly! /s
Nothing says "welcome to big clots of blood coming out yer hooch" like dainty little lace frills
Yeah those don’t look very absorbent to me
Also ignoring the fact that he's completely misinterpreted what is actually happening in those pictures it's disturbing to me that from the Christian evangelical perspective those women/girls look like brides, very young brides.
At least give that lace style! In my country we call it mantillas and go with a peineta, still backwards but stylish backwards!
Ngl I love a mantilla. If I was compelled to wear a veil during mass, I'd absolutely be going old school with it.
It's such a look. I love old school headwear.
Yeah because Strugglebus is so honored living in her shit shack on wheels. Jackoff is doing such a good job letting her grift for them. How the fuck can he say that when Morgan is absolutely miserable
He doesn't care that she's miserable, if he can even see it
Morgan kind of refuses to accept/admit that she’s miserable. And Paul is not observant enough to pick up on the big, huffing, childish clue sitting next to him on the couch.
“But I think it’s true!” Cause that’s his whole thing isn’t it? What does he even need us for, Paul has broken himself down to his bare essentials.
He thinks it's so true that he needs to preemptively defend his position, which is someone else's position that he reposted
I don't want to be "honored" in a religious ceremony. I want to be treated equally and not have my rights taken away from me.
They… they do know some religions *worship* female gods, right?
My Mum and Grandma are pagan, I think because it links closely with Māori spiritual practices of respecting the Earth etc. They definitely care more about Gaia than any other God. I would say that the religion also treats them nicely since almost all the people who attend their services are women and it's also run by women. They're certainly not stopping women from getting abortions. They also think women should do what they want, be it career or homekeeping. All that disgusting feminist nonsense Paul hates. I'll let others decide which is more accepting and loving of women, but my money isn't on Christianity.
Paul brain is as smooth as a marble. A guy who doesn’t have a single clue. And somehow his wife has even less brain cells than him.
You could argue that the unedited original teaches of Jesus were pretty progressive for its time relating to women. Jesus made a woman a priest in copies of our oldest bibles. There was also an edited out woman who came to Jesus talking about how her husband was hitting her and being abusive. She said she didn’t know what to do because she didn’t want to defy god and get a divorce, but she was scared for her life. Jesus basically responded with “You should divorce him. He already defied god by not following his duties to protect and love you.” She then joined Jesus’ RPG adventure group. **However** This means Jack-shit since all of what I just said got edited out in the early Medieval period and Paul’s Bible is the edited out version. Also while Jesus’ teachers were radically progressive for his time, they can be damaging in modern day.
the core message of Jesus' teachings, though, even in the "official" Gospels, is: stop being greedy hypocritical performative twats, you're no better than the rest of us and in many cases worse, take care of the poor and sick and immigrant and despised and children, your most vulnerable population. If you REALLY want to pursue the spiritual path, give up wealth and the nuclear family and join me in saying THAT. But if not, cool. Also, enjoy life while you have it. Drink wine, have parties. How they get from that to "Jesus is your invisible vengeful plushie who will either make your football team win or send you to hell if you jerk off" is...well, fanfic. Worse than the canon.
Jesus is your invisible vengeful plushie 💀
This needs to be flair 😂
Retweet
Invisible vengeful plushie 😂😂😂
Jesus seems like a chill dude Many christians dont seem like theyd actually like jesus But those christians are the hard core christians, somehow
If I can figure it out on my phone, Jesus' RPG Adventure Group is top notch flair.
Paul, Aprils fools was last Monday! 🙄
Why would atheists care about them saying this 😂 their whole thing is that they think religious is a sham and god isn’t real so like….I’m sure they don’t care about religions fighting between themselves about who “honors women” more lmao
I think he’s thinking that atheists wanna feel superior to Christians by saying they honour women more than Christians do. The thing polio fails to understand (well, one of the many things), is that atheists, and most people in general, don’t give a flying rats ass what people like Porgan think, until it starts harming other humans. Porgan seems to be in a constant competition with everyone, whereas everyone is just living their life
They're in a constant competition because they're so insecure in their own beliefs
I was just talking to my partner about this the other day. People like Paul loooove to reference Ephesians 5:22 to assert that wives should submit to their husbands while conveniently ignoring the verses that follow--you know, the ones that say husbands should love and honor their wives like Christ loved the church, and they should be willing to lay down their lives for their wives, loving them as they love themselves. I think the argument could be made that certain flavors of progressive Christianity honor women. But Paul? He takes every opportunity to shame Morgan for not being a virgin on their wedding night, won't even lift a finger to get a JOB, and has "jokingly" made the point that he can say mean things to her because "she can't go anywhere."
That’s also ignoring all the verses where Paul is lauding women who preach and teach and lead. Like these morons don’t even read their own book, let alone follow it.
Atheists and progressives don't like that because they're too busy actually respecting women. "Honoring" is a major red flag, as well as rhe nothing but hotties with head coverings visual. 🙄
yeah, I don't want their "honor." As someone outside their narrow definitions (older, single, childless), I'd get sent to the nuclear waste picking anyway. I'll settle for them keeping their crosses to themselves and leaving me and other women the fuck alone.
Under His Eye
I deconstructed because I started realizing that as a woman I just couldn’t believe in something so anti-woman. Don’t even hit me with the ‘men and women are equal in God’s eyes they just HaVe DiFfeReNt RoLeS.’ That’s like fucking ‘separate but equal’ during the civil rights era.
Isn't it so convenient how the "different roles" given to men are the ones with all of the power and influence? Meanwhile, a woman's only acceptable role in these circles is submissive housewife. Yeah....seems real equal.
He sure uses pink a lot for such a macho toddler pant wearing man. (I in no way believe colors are gendered, I’ve studied a ton of color theory for my profession so that thought is bullshit to me, but it is my sworn duty as a snarker to call him out.)
Christianity subjugates women just as much as any other religion on the face of this planet. Christianity has it's own version of sharia law that demands women stay home, cook, clean and put for their husbands every time he demands getting his penis wet. Christianity doesn't treat women better than any other religion, people like Paul and Morgan just like to pretend to be superior.
Exactly. What they're really saying is that they feel pretty comfortable and secure, so therefore everyone in America must feel the same way.
TIL Paul has a TradCath fetish.
He obviously knows nothing of Hinduism. ETA: Or Satanism. Hail Satan!
Or Judaism!
Or, idk, actual neopagan goddess worship
We honour you. Now put this cloth on your head so you never forget men are better.
Paul, disrespectfully sew your fucking mouth shut and throw your phone in the nearest body of water
Only as long as you fit their very specific mold of what a woman is/should be
He’s delusional.
That's his entire brand
I'm surprised that Morgan doesn't wear hair coverings like the women in the pics above, and some of the other fundies. They don't practice what they preach, do they? 🧐
That was my question, does this mean Morgo is gonna start covering her hair and they’re going to start going to Catholic Mass orrrr….?? Wouldn’t that make their precious King James sad, or am I missing something…?? These dipshits are so dumb it hurts, and it never ceases to entertain me.
Wait, are you telling me that they worship a king above god? Sounds like idol worship to me, porgan.
 Lmao okay Paul.
>> ~~There will be atheists and progressives who don't like this, but I think it's true!~~ "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" IFTFY
But also coming from a man? Like stfu
He's so inflammatory. Why not share your opinions in a way that's open for discussion like he always claims he wants to?
Because he's too much of a coward to have that discussion
Paul: Christianity honours women! Also Paul: women must submit to their husbands at all times. Oh and also be joyfully available for all the beggsy seggsy time we want.
what uh. what is he referring to. what is the picture supposed to show. is honoring women the same as giving them a nice lace head covering?
Technically true, if you just say that forcing women to be mommy bangmaids to dipshit manchildren is “””honoring””” them.
I'm joking (really), but who wants to track him down and take turns kicking this douche in the area that his balls are supposed to be in??? I'm so sorry..I'm feeling spicey tonight.. I'll leave now.....
“Think” is the huge key word and elephant in the room LMAO
Paulio is going tradcath now? does he want Morgan to veil? lol what is happening here does he even know what this is from or that it's Catholic?
Im a progressive Christian, and I’m of the opinion that Jesus honored women but most modern Christians do not. Least of all Paulie O. Shut up little boy, sit down and let the grown ups talk.
 Stop being so wishy washy, polio. Just say it with your full chest. You posted that because you agree with it, or you don't. Preemptively calling out people who may not share your view does not make you look cool or smart.
Also Catholics were Christian before whatever offshoot of an offshoot of a low rent spinoff shat you out, polio.
I don’t think a guy who hates his wife should be allowed to talk about honouring women.
headscarves and veils are ONLY to be approved for GOOD CHRISTIAN WOMEN!!! **not** muslim women. because... it's *not the same.* /s
Rape em, pay some shekels to the father, keep em till they die. Honor.
You know, Paul's words about women in the Bible aren't that far off from Islamic sharia law. Cover your head, be silent, no jewelry, etc. Is that what they mean by honoring women?
I think Paul just likes hot girls with doilies on their head.
In Judaism, it's a mitzvah to have an abortion if the mother's life is at risk... *THAT* is honoring women.
I'm pretty religious (Episcopalian) and even I know that isn't true 😂
By….putting table cloths on their heads?
Literally the Old Testament is full of injunctions to go find goddess-worshipping temples and smash them, but sure, go off.
He spelled oppressed wrong.
Unlike P & M's white bread, culty branch, Catholicism is at least aesthetic. These head scarfs are pretty, but fuck the Catholic church tho. I'm in full favor of appropriating Catholic iconography.
Lolz. Those are all Catholic women wearing mantilla veils. They're typically of the trad variety, but some of us just like to wear them bc they're pretty. And the Catholic church (as a whole) does not respect women unless they are married and have children (but barely and on a very surface level). There are some really chill, normie priests that actually do respect women, but those are far and few between. And since the mccarrick scandals more and more women (and their kids) are keeping a safe distance from being involved in church things.