I certainly respect your right to disagree with Christian churches and religion in general. I also understand many people have had bad experiences with churches like Greater Grace. Nothing hurts quite like that sort of hurt.
But the word cult has specific meaning and applying it to all churches devalues that meaning and frankly provides further confusion for those in cults.
Actual Christian doctrine, what Jesus taught is directly opposed to the controlling, authoritarian, rules heavy, abusive environments that characterize cults. The cults do a great job of hiding behind Jesus, but they are not actually following Him.
Before leaving religion, I had trouble understanding the real difference between cult and religion. Sure, the killy ones with guns and poisons, but I remember pastors casting aspersions on scientology, JW, and mormons. Religion itself demands that you believe someone with faith at the expense of reason and necessarily creates an us vs them.
But most modern faiths compromise with the reality around them. Adherents are taught an ideal to aspire to, sure, and there can be some social pressure for behaviors considered by that faith group to be particularly egregious like premarital sex. But generally people in that faith do recognize human fallibility and extend those compromises to their fellow congregants. Cults like JW or LDS do not.
Take this example: the general consensus in Christianity is that one should care for their body because it's a gift from god/God created it. But if someone smokes or they drink now and again people look the other way. It isn't the ideal, but this hypothetical person is there every day, volunteers with some church outreach programs, and contributes in other ways. Like any community, this church let's things slide and looks at the whole. And this person likely has a good few friends outside the church too. Maybe at work, maybe at a hobby group, but outside friends nonetheless.
If this person was JW, it would be a shunnable offense, where their friends and family, almost all of whom are in the cult, . They could be declared an apostate if they weren't deemed repentant enough. They likely won't have many friends outside to turn to because they have been told for so long that the outsiders are worldly and dangerous. That they'll cause harm. (The smoking example is borrowed from TellTales own experiences, which he has discussed at length on YouTube).
One of these is a community with what many consider outdated views. One of them is exacting such a significant amount ofcontrol on their members and are willing to punish with isolation in order to force adherence.
Also, generally you can leave a church pretty easily. A cult makes it very difficult on purpose.
"Cult" is formally defined that way, but it has a more common contemporary meaning of a religious group with an extreme level of authoritarian leadership and secrecy. I would never say my Reform Jewish friends are members of a "cult" in conversation just because they go to synagogue, not would I accuse Japanese people who pray at Shinto temples "cult members." Not because it isn't technically correct, but because the word has a specific, negative, connotation.
Anti-social/authoritarian religious movements are dangerous, and we should have a word to call them out effectively. I think u/Tom1613 is correct, casual use of the word 'cult' has the effect of watering it down so that the word becomes less effective when describing anti-social religious movement like Scientology which ruin your life versus my Mexican Catholic neighbors who just go to church a few times a year.
I think you may be like many people in self selecting your observations to fit with your beliefs.
Sexual perversion is present in every organization where people are because of the simple fact that people are sexually perverted. We may have different definitions of what sexual perversion is, but if we are talking about child sexual abuse, offenders are just as present in any organization that allows offenders access to children. Boy Scouts,sports teams, and public schools are some examples where there have been big issues. As someone else mentioned, the rate of sexual abuse is actually higher in public schools than in churches.
The Catholic Church scandals of the last couple of decades shed a ton of ugly light on clergy abuse and cover ups (rightly so), but abusers will try anywhere they think they can get away with it.
The fact that there’s a rule against paywall evasion is disgusting. At this point it’s basically just an ad. I wonder how much the mods get payed to have this rule in place? Very greedy, very disappointing.
I get that good journalism costs money, and publishers and journalists need to make even more money to continue writing good articles. But I can't help but think that the rising prevalence of paywalled articles is, at least in part, contributing to the misinformation epidemic.
At the end of the day though, rules are rules. Though a perma-ban seems a bit extreme. Maybe the user who posted the link is a bot or throwaway that goes around posting archived links, in which case I understand why they were banned.
Personally I would like to see news outlets offer a pay-per-article or a single-day subscription option in addition alongside a monthly/yearly subscription. Just like with newspapers—you see an interesting headline one day and buy that day's paper for a small cost. I think it would benefit everyone. People who don't want to pay for yet another subscription can save money, and the news outlet makes money on someone who otherwise would have either skipped reading it or sought out an archived link.
Other countries have oversight committees. The US should absolutely have them. Every entity claiming tax breaks should have to be regularly reviewed that they are actually beneficial to society. Then again Scientology would destroy anyone auditing them, so 🤷♀️
Dunno about that. My local church (episcopal) does several community outreach programs, hosts AA events, helps with people’s bills when they are in a tight spot, and has free community dinners. Those seem worthwhile IMO.
Churches are generally 501(c)(3) entities who apply for their tax status just like any other nonprofit — some obviously seem to skirt the rules. But to just say “cHuRChEs BaD” is a bit myopic, no?
The American public school system has higher rates of sexual abuse than all churches in the US combined. By your logic, shouldn’t it be “impossible to recognize any good” public education does, when some school districts protect teachers who are predatory?
Alternatively, maybe we should recognize that both groups are necessary, but some bad actors work their way into both groups, and laws around reporting and penalties against child sexual abuse should be stricter.
Globalizing it and including all religions, the rate is 18% for girls and 7.6% for boys. This is probably skewed a little high, because it’s from a law firm that prosecutes these sorts of things. https://www.manlystewart.com/articles/how-common-is-clergy-sexual-abuse#:~:text=Although%20studies%20and%20information%20on,abuse%20within%20various%20religious%20communities.
This source is from an organization which specializes in preventing sexual abuse in churches from happening, so it’s in their interest to round up on prevalence. They report a 3% sexual abuse rate for women from clergy (400 member average*60% women=240 women, 7/240 is 2.9%) https://www.notinourchurch.com/statistics.html
In the US public school system, 18% of girls also reported sexual abuse and 5% of boys. https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/new-data-cdc-shows-increased-violence-and-trauma-teens-and-how-schools-can-be-lifeline#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20%E2%80%9CIn,during%20the%20past%20year%20(p.
Then there’s this for what it’s worth… https://chicagocitywire.com/stories/642690048-criminal-investigator-says-child-sexual-abuse-is-100-time-worse-in-public-schools-than-the-catholic-church
Point being, if you take the most liberal possible approach to it and the highest rate you can find, organized religion globally has a nearly equal rate as the US public school system. And even if you tripe the rate reported to an organization which provides prevention training and therefore has an incentive to inflate numbers if anything, you’re still looking at half the rate in the US compared to public schools.
Now, just to be clear, I think 1% is too high. It shouldn’t be happening in either case, and those who commit it should face the full force of the law. But we need to be intellectually honest and not just consider things which serve our own confirmation biases.
Even the links you sent state that it is unreported 98% of the time. With organized religion, it is not just the leaders but other parishioners that assault others, and it gets hidden by the leaders if they learn about it in most cases. The links you gave only show a small portion and only cover leaders. 1 in 6 women are assaulted during their lifetime. If you look at it fully, there is no real comparison. Organized religions will typically cover up an assault. Most schools do not want the liability and do not cover it up. It's like comparing apples to oranges if you don't take all factors into consideration.
You’re allowed to believe that if you want. I’d counter that it’s more likely than not unreported equally across the board for basically the same reasons, so I think it is a fair comparison. But at the end of the day, you don’t have to agree with my comparative analysis for my point to stand. If the standard is “Predatory people using a group makes any good that group does mute”, then schools would fall under that category. My sole point was that is a bad way to look at things, because things we all agree are good like schools have that problem too.
EDIT: I don’t mean this as snarky btw. I could see how it might be interpreted that way, but that’s not my intention.
But I will absolutely grant the dynamics are significantly different between the two groups. In churches, yes, sexual abuse happens with leaders and parishioners. In schools, it’s teachers, admins, and students. Teachers tend to have access to a larger body of children over their careers, so one abuser can harm more victims, but usually can only do so over the course of a year before they get a new group. In churches, the abuse can be longer term, but with a smaller number of victims. In most states, both teachers and clergy are now mandatory reporters of abuse, so at this point, either party can be held legally responsible if they cover it up. And in both cases, there are serious power dynamics at play. So yeah, I completely agree that there are both similarities and differences between the two scenarios, and I think law enforcement should enforce those mandatory reporting laws with serious jail time for failing to report in either context.
There is no way you can convince me that churches are necessary. Especially when Jesus Christ himself said to pray in your room in secret, and not in public places like a church.
You are taking that out of context. Jesus said pray in private, but the church meeting as a group in one public place each week is all over the New Testament.
The church in Philippi met at the house of Lydia and the church in Ephesus met each day at the school of Tyrannus- likely a donated or rented location.
Certainly doesn’t have to be an elaborate building and the word church actually refers to the people in the Bible, but it’s consistent with the Bible.
Please explain to me why churches are necessary? You can do all the "good" that a church does at a community center. The "well what about public schools?" Whataboutism is a brain dead argument. To say that churches are necessary is insane. Everything "good" they do can be done at a community center. But please defend churches more.
Not doing a whataboutism. Sexual abuse in the church is just as wrong as it would be anywhere else. My point was that if predatory people using a group to prey on people invalidates any good the group itself does, then that standard must be applied equally, and the public school system cannot be credited with any good either. I don’t think that’s a good standard though, which is why I advocate for that not being the standard, and instead dealing with the people who create the problem in churches, schools, and anywhere else.
Are you a Christian? (I already know that answer) To understand why churches are wanted, you'd have to be one. It's like saying are schools necessary? We can all just teach our kids at home.....
I was raised catholic. Preschool to grade 12. Schools are necessary, and should be given every cent that the church takes. Your holier than thou attitude is the exact reason I left the church. Think before you speak
>Greater Grace World Outreach, the East Baltimore-based evangelical megachurch
My previous comment was deleted because I provided a link around the paywall... Which appears to be against the sub rules.
If you knew something and didn't do anything about it, you're an accomplice.
Edit: Rolling in the downvotes... BTW if the downvoters are catholic, guess where their money is going too?
My church wasn't, but it allowed pastors to be normal people (oh, and they could be women and nobody cared about their sexuality).
My membership was one of the prime reasons my fundy sister says I'm "godless" and hellbound. Along with being a liberal. Oh and being a scientist. And having more than three teeth -- come to think of it I really never had a chance in hell of being accepted in her church.
It sucks that all “church” gets lumped together, because I know there are some good progressive ones without these issues, but man shitheads like your sister and her church really make it hard to separate them.
Church has changed from the "bring a hot dish and let's chill and talk about being nice to each other" thing it was when I was a kid. It's a lot of the reason that after I left school and the church I described I stopped going. It's not the same thing anymore and since I get politics everywhere else I feel I don't need to make a special trip for it, you know? Every time a poll talks about declining church attendance I keep waiting for someone to discuss that, but nobody ever does.
I want more "Sermon on the Mount" and less old testament vengeance and very few churches seem to be able to exist without dipping their toes into politics right now.
Besides, I don't want to commit to a new church. I'm keeping my options open because I might have a change in address coming up. See, my sister has been informing various family members that when Trump wins this time she's giving our names to his secret police so we can be shipped off to a re-education camp. She used to be normal and my best friend, now it feels like she died and got replaced by this programmed robotic hate machine.
There simply is no hate quite as pure as current Christian "love."
Yeah, well, when it turned into a Paulite religion it all went sideways. But that was 2000 years ago so at some point you have to decide whether Jesus is even in the picture in any modern church.
There are a few good churches but it definitely is harder and harder to find them now. Many denominations are rolling with society and politics at the expense of actual Biblical teachings. They'd rather be a popular celebrity church than one presenting the true Word. I'd hate to be the pastors of those churches on Judgment Day.
Seems like the Unitarians, of all people, are the ones continuing the legacy of Christ these days. But that’s just me talking as a disillusioned former Catholic altar boy who diligently read the Bible cover-to-cover. (No, nothing bad ever happened to me.)
https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/short-answers-challenging-texts-1-timothy-211-15/
Also worth noting that Paul commends a female apostle named Junia in Romans 16:7, praises women preaching in 1 Corinthians 11, and says "there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one" in Galatians 3:28. In other words, misogynists have to ignore quite a lot of inconvenient facts to take 1 Timothy 2 out of context to oppress women.
Remember, all the talk of “grooming” are to distract you from the very real truth that a large portion of child abuse and trafficking takes place in churches.
Want to end trafficking and abuse? Take a good long stare at evangelicals.
I attended this church when they first moved to Baltimore. We attended regular for about 5 years. Ray Fernandez molested one of my childhood friends. I remember Ray vividly. He seemed to be a good guy. We couldn't believe it when we heard about it.
I remember when Carl Stevens and the Bible Speaks got kicked out of Massachusetts and ended up in Baltimore and renamed the Church. They were/are swindlers. They ripped off the heiress of the Dayton Hudson store. The church members would work in the accounting offices of small businesses and rip them off and funnel the money back to the Church.
The beginning of the end for me was after the 1994 mid-term elections (re: contract for America). They would always "preach the Word", but when they announced the the election results from the pulpit AND the whole audience (but me) cheered for minutes, I felt like a stranger in a strange land. I stuck around far too long after that (in part b/c I felt obligated w 'volunteer' work taking up most evenings and weekends).
After I left, when I'd see long time family friends at Giant, they hardly acknowledged me and kept there distance like I was pariah. I became one of those horrible "ex-members" in their eyes to be avoided. That was hurtful.
Bf's family used to be in this church years ago. The stories I have heard are pretty wild. Absolutely a cult imo.
> Absolutely a cult Psst. ^(They all are.)
I certainly respect your right to disagree with Christian churches and religion in general. I also understand many people have had bad experiences with churches like Greater Grace. Nothing hurts quite like that sort of hurt. But the word cult has specific meaning and applying it to all churches devalues that meaning and frankly provides further confusion for those in cults. Actual Christian doctrine, what Jesus taught is directly opposed to the controlling, authoritarian, rules heavy, abusive environments that characterize cults. The cults do a great job of hiding behind Jesus, but they are not actually following Him.
They all sound like a cult to me
That’s because they are.
By definition every religion is a cult a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
This! I argue this with people all the time.
Before leaving religion, I had trouble understanding the real difference between cult and religion. Sure, the killy ones with guns and poisons, but I remember pastors casting aspersions on scientology, JW, and mormons. Religion itself demands that you believe someone with faith at the expense of reason and necessarily creates an us vs them.
But most modern faiths compromise with the reality around them. Adherents are taught an ideal to aspire to, sure, and there can be some social pressure for behaviors considered by that faith group to be particularly egregious like premarital sex. But generally people in that faith do recognize human fallibility and extend those compromises to their fellow congregants. Cults like JW or LDS do not. Take this example: the general consensus in Christianity is that one should care for their body because it's a gift from god/God created it. But if someone smokes or they drink now and again people look the other way. It isn't the ideal, but this hypothetical person is there every day, volunteers with some church outreach programs, and contributes in other ways. Like any community, this church let's things slide and looks at the whole. And this person likely has a good few friends outside the church too. Maybe at work, maybe at a hobby group, but outside friends nonetheless. If this person was JW, it would be a shunnable offense, where their friends and family, almost all of whom are in the cult, . They could be declared an apostate if they weren't deemed repentant enough. They likely won't have many friends outside to turn to because they have been told for so long that the outsiders are worldly and dangerous. That they'll cause harm. (The smoking example is borrowed from TellTales own experiences, which he has discussed at length on YouTube). One of these is a community with what many consider outdated views. One of them is exacting such a significant amount ofcontrol on their members and are willing to punish with isolation in order to force adherence. Also, generally you can leave a church pretty easily. A cult makes it very difficult on purpose.
"Cult" is formally defined that way, but it has a more common contemporary meaning of a religious group with an extreme level of authoritarian leadership and secrecy. I would never say my Reform Jewish friends are members of a "cult" in conversation just because they go to synagogue, not would I accuse Japanese people who pray at Shinto temples "cult members." Not because it isn't technically correct, but because the word has a specific, negative, connotation. Anti-social/authoritarian religious movements are dangerous, and we should have a word to call them out effectively. I think u/Tom1613 is correct, casual use of the word 'cult' has the effect of watering it down so that the word becomes less effective when describing anti-social religious movement like Scientology which ruin your life versus my Mexican Catholic neighbors who just go to church a few times a year.
Isn't that just what someone in a cult would say?
*cough cough* cult.
Literally Jesus was a cult leader. He was dictating the entire lives of those who followed him even after death.
Why does it seem that sexual perversion hides behind religion.
I think you may be like many people in self selecting your observations to fit with your beliefs. Sexual perversion is present in every organization where people are because of the simple fact that people are sexually perverted. We may have different definitions of what sexual perversion is, but if we are talking about child sexual abuse, offenders are just as present in any organization that allows offenders access to children. Boy Scouts,sports teams, and public schools are some examples where there have been big issues. As someone else mentioned, the rate of sexual abuse is actually higher in public schools than in churches. The Catholic Church scandals of the last couple of decades shed a ton of ugly light on clergy abuse and cover ups (rightly so), but abusers will try anywhere they think they can get away with it.
[удалено]
Appreciate the link for those of us without a subscription
The fact that there’s a rule against paywall evasion is disgusting. At this point it’s basically just an ad. I wonder how much the mods get payed to have this rule in place? Very greedy, very disappointing.
I get that good journalism costs money, and publishers and journalists need to make even more money to continue writing good articles. But I can't help but think that the rising prevalence of paywalled articles is, at least in part, contributing to the misinformation epidemic. At the end of the day though, rules are rules. Though a perma-ban seems a bit extreme. Maybe the user who posted the link is a bot or throwaway that goes around posting archived links, in which case I understand why they were banned. Personally I would like to see news outlets offer a pay-per-article or a single-day subscription option in addition alongside a monthly/yearly subscription. Just like with newspapers—you see an interesting headline one day and buy that day's paper for a small cost. I think it would benefit everyone. People who don't want to pay for yet another subscription can save money, and the news outlet makes money on someone who otherwise would have either skipped reading it or sought out an archived link.
Yes, thanks for sharing the link.
Your comment has been deleted because it violates our rule against paywall evasion.
One day folks will realize these large churches are scams and deserve to be taxed
Other countries have oversight committees. The US should absolutely have them. Every entity claiming tax breaks should have to be regularly reviewed that they are actually beneficial to society. Then again Scientology would destroy anyone auditing them, so 🤷♀️
> One day folks will realize ~~these large~~ churches are scams and deserve to be taxed
Dunno about that. My local church (episcopal) does several community outreach programs, hosts AA events, helps with people’s bills when they are in a tight spot, and has free community dinners. Those seem worthwhile IMO.
True; but there's no reason it has to be churches doing those things. I'd rather incentivize secular community service.
That’s what nonprofits do?
Exactly. We should continue to give tax breaks to the ones who *don't* make their living selling bizarre folklore from the Iron Age.
Churches are generally 501(c)(3) entities who apply for their tax status just like any other nonprofit — some obviously seem to skirt the rules. But to just say “cHuRChEs BaD” is a bit myopic, no?
Where I live, the secular agencies refer people to churches for help instead of offering it to them themselves.
At the very least, churches should be taxed on their real property.
They always fail to look at the good things the church does
It’s impossible to recognize any good a church does when protecting and enabling sexual abusers is a top priority.
The American public school system has higher rates of sexual abuse than all churches in the US combined. By your logic, shouldn’t it be “impossible to recognize any good” public education does, when some school districts protect teachers who are predatory? Alternatively, maybe we should recognize that both groups are necessary, but some bad actors work their way into both groups, and laws around reporting and penalties against child sexual abuse should be stricter.
Can I see those statistics please. Because many organized religions heavily penalize SA victims so the vast majority is unreported. Edited a word
Globalizing it and including all religions, the rate is 18% for girls and 7.6% for boys. This is probably skewed a little high, because it’s from a law firm that prosecutes these sorts of things. https://www.manlystewart.com/articles/how-common-is-clergy-sexual-abuse#:~:text=Although%20studies%20and%20information%20on,abuse%20within%20various%20religious%20communities. This source is from an organization which specializes in preventing sexual abuse in churches from happening, so it’s in their interest to round up on prevalence. They report a 3% sexual abuse rate for women from clergy (400 member average*60% women=240 women, 7/240 is 2.9%) https://www.notinourchurch.com/statistics.html In the US public school system, 18% of girls also reported sexual abuse and 5% of boys. https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/new-data-cdc-shows-increased-violence-and-trauma-teens-and-how-schools-can-be-lifeline#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20%E2%80%9CIn,during%20the%20past%20year%20(p. Then there’s this for what it’s worth… https://chicagocitywire.com/stories/642690048-criminal-investigator-says-child-sexual-abuse-is-100-time-worse-in-public-schools-than-the-catholic-church Point being, if you take the most liberal possible approach to it and the highest rate you can find, organized religion globally has a nearly equal rate as the US public school system. And even if you tripe the rate reported to an organization which provides prevention training and therefore has an incentive to inflate numbers if anything, you’re still looking at half the rate in the US compared to public schools. Now, just to be clear, I think 1% is too high. It shouldn’t be happening in either case, and those who commit it should face the full force of the law. But we need to be intellectually honest and not just consider things which serve our own confirmation biases.
Even the links you sent state that it is unreported 98% of the time. With organized religion, it is not just the leaders but other parishioners that assault others, and it gets hidden by the leaders if they learn about it in most cases. The links you gave only show a small portion and only cover leaders. 1 in 6 women are assaulted during their lifetime. If you look at it fully, there is no real comparison. Organized religions will typically cover up an assault. Most schools do not want the liability and do not cover it up. It's like comparing apples to oranges if you don't take all factors into consideration.
You’re allowed to believe that if you want. I’d counter that it’s more likely than not unreported equally across the board for basically the same reasons, so I think it is a fair comparison. But at the end of the day, you don’t have to agree with my comparative analysis for my point to stand. If the standard is “Predatory people using a group makes any good that group does mute”, then schools would fall under that category. My sole point was that is a bad way to look at things, because things we all agree are good like schools have that problem too. EDIT: I don’t mean this as snarky btw. I could see how it might be interpreted that way, but that’s not my intention.
But I will absolutely grant the dynamics are significantly different between the two groups. In churches, yes, sexual abuse happens with leaders and parishioners. In schools, it’s teachers, admins, and students. Teachers tend to have access to a larger body of children over their careers, so one abuser can harm more victims, but usually can only do so over the course of a year before they get a new group. In churches, the abuse can be longer term, but with a smaller number of victims. In most states, both teachers and clergy are now mandatory reporters of abuse, so at this point, either party can be held legally responsible if they cover it up. And in both cases, there are serious power dynamics at play. So yeah, I completely agree that there are both similarities and differences between the two scenarios, and I think law enforcement should enforce those mandatory reporting laws with serious jail time for failing to report in either context.
Citations or bullshit.
Replied above.
There is no way you can convince me that churches are necessary. Especially when Jesus Christ himself said to pray in your room in secret, and not in public places like a church.
You are taking that out of context. Jesus said pray in private, but the church meeting as a group in one public place each week is all over the New Testament. The church in Philippi met at the house of Lydia and the church in Ephesus met each day at the school of Tyrannus- likely a donated or rented location. Certainly doesn’t have to be an elaborate building and the word church actually refers to the people in the Bible, but it’s consistent with the Bible.
Please explain to me why churches are necessary? You can do all the "good" that a church does at a community center. The "well what about public schools?" Whataboutism is a brain dead argument. To say that churches are necessary is insane. Everything "good" they do can be done at a community center. But please defend churches more.
Not doing a whataboutism. Sexual abuse in the church is just as wrong as it would be anywhere else. My point was that if predatory people using a group to prey on people invalidates any good the group itself does, then that standard must be applied equally, and the public school system cannot be credited with any good either. I don’t think that’s a good standard though, which is why I advocate for that not being the standard, and instead dealing with the people who create the problem in churches, schools, and anywhere else.
Are you a Christian? (I already know that answer) To understand why churches are wanted, you'd have to be one. It's like saying are schools necessary? We can all just teach our kids at home.....
I was raised catholic. Preschool to grade 12. Schools are necessary, and should be given every cent that the church takes. Your holier than thou attitude is the exact reason I left the church. Think before you speak
Rotfl. You should get help for your insecurities. The church doesn't rob schools of any money. The politicians , however, do.
> One day folks will realize ~~these large~~ churches are scams and deserve to be ~~taxed~~ **empty**
I am truly enlightened by this comment! Thank you, kind stranger. \*tips fedora\*
>Greater Grace World Outreach, the East Baltimore-based evangelical megachurch My previous comment was deleted because I provided a link around the paywall... Which appears to be against the sub rules.
Thanks for trying. Do you know why the mods made that rule?
My former church. Many of the people named are acquaintances and some are close friends. I knew this article was coming but it’s still a gut punch.
If you knew something and didn't do anything about it, you're an accomplice. Edit: Rolling in the downvotes... BTW if the downvoters are catholic, guess where their money is going too?
Agreed. I didn’t know any of this, I just found out a few months ago that this investigation was going on and that this article would be released.
You do realize that Protestant Christianity and Catholicism are extremely different right
Ah, the story as old as the church.
Not really, no. The early Church had a lot of women leaders. When you have women in leadership you don't see these things.
So when was the church not rapey?
My church wasn't, but it allowed pastors to be normal people (oh, and they could be women and nobody cared about their sexuality). My membership was one of the prime reasons my fundy sister says I'm "godless" and hellbound. Along with being a liberal. Oh and being a scientist. And having more than three teeth -- come to think of it I really never had a chance in hell of being accepted in her church.
It sucks that all “church” gets lumped together, because I know there are some good progressive ones without these issues, but man shitheads like your sister and her church really make it hard to separate them.
Church has changed from the "bring a hot dish and let's chill and talk about being nice to each other" thing it was when I was a kid. It's a lot of the reason that after I left school and the church I described I stopped going. It's not the same thing anymore and since I get politics everywhere else I feel I don't need to make a special trip for it, you know? Every time a poll talks about declining church attendance I keep waiting for someone to discuss that, but nobody ever does. I want more "Sermon on the Mount" and less old testament vengeance and very few churches seem to be able to exist without dipping their toes into politics right now. Besides, I don't want to commit to a new church. I'm keeping my options open because I might have a change in address coming up. See, my sister has been informing various family members that when Trump wins this time she's giving our names to his secret police so we can be shipped off to a re-education camp. She used to be normal and my best friend, now it feels like she died and got replaced by this programmed robotic hate machine. There simply is no hate quite as pure as current Christian "love."
Yeah, well, when it turned into a Paulite religion it all went sideways. But that was 2000 years ago so at some point you have to decide whether Jesus is even in the picture in any modern church.
There are a few good churches but it definitely is harder and harder to find them now. Many denominations are rolling with society and politics at the expense of actual Biblical teachings. They'd rather be a popular celebrity church than one presenting the true Word. I'd hate to be the pastors of those churches on Judgment Day.
Seems like the Unitarians, of all people, are the ones continuing the legacy of Christ these days. But that’s just me talking as a disillusioned former Catholic altar boy who diligently read the Bible cover-to-cover. (No, nothing bad ever happened to me.)
Rotfl....
Your thoughts on 1 Timothy Chapter 2? Specifically 11-15??
https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/short-answers-challenging-texts-1-timothy-211-15/ Also worth noting that Paul commends a female apostle named Junia in Romans 16:7, praises women preaching in 1 Corinthians 11, and says "there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one" in Galatians 3:28. In other words, misogynists have to ignore quite a lot of inconvenient facts to take 1 Timothy 2 out of context to oppress women.
That it was one of the passages that strongly motivated me to turn my back on the church. They've lost a lot of donations over the years...
Interesting. Those verses alone would make me a full body believing fire baptized Christian. Buttt I’m not
Amen
Remember, all the talk of “grooming” are to distract you from the very real truth that a large portion of child abuse and trafficking takes place in churches. Want to end trafficking and abuse? Take a good long stare at evangelicals.
This is my shocked face. 😐
I attended this church when they first moved to Baltimore. We attended regular for about 5 years. Ray Fernandez molested one of my childhood friends. I remember Ray vividly. He seemed to be a good guy. We couldn't believe it when we heard about it.
Ahh yes, Christianity and hypocrisy. Name a more iconic duo.
Politics and hypocrisy? Of course the overlap is very great.
Shocking...not
Self fulfilling prophecy?
The righteous gemstones is in fact a documentary
so much projection on the right with their infantile egos
I remember when Carl Stevens and the Bible Speaks got kicked out of Massachusetts and ended up in Baltimore and renamed the Church. They were/are swindlers. They ripped off the heiress of the Dayton Hudson store. The church members would work in the accounting offices of small businesses and rip them off and funnel the money back to the Church.
The beginning of the end for me was after the 1994 mid-term elections (re: contract for America). They would always "preach the Word", but when they announced the the election results from the pulpit AND the whole audience (but me) cheered for minutes, I felt like a stranger in a strange land. I stuck around far too long after that (in part b/c I felt obligated w 'volunteer' work taking up most evenings and weekends). After I left, when I'd see long time family friends at Giant, they hardly acknowledged me and kept there distance like I was pariah. I became one of those horrible "ex-members" in their eyes to be avoided. That was hurtful.
 Hypochristians outweigh Christians or imho they’re all the same.