Technically all Christians have a version of this. Though even in “Bible Churches” it is usually tempered by the second bit below, and processes of repentance and whatnot.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

I Corinthians 5

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18

As an aside, that Corinthians bit spells it out in plain-ass English that any “Christian” screaming at non-Christians about being gay, trans, or whatever either do not know their Bible or only use it when it supports the actions they already want to take.

As a second aside, it is kind of funny what one still remembers even after being out of the church for a couple decades.

Grand Qanon Party - aka Trumplicans

Same reason that people stick with Google.

After years in the eco-system it is obnoxious to swap, and the other main competitor isn’t any better of a company to deal with.

top ignoring and turning away the victims of your priest’s rape and abuse

Same list as I dropped on your other post. Took like 30 seconds in a web-search to call that claim into serious doubt. Also, I searched for him turning away sexual abuse victims and found nothing.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

That is a great idea, but no. He was living in another part of the country from them at the time of the initial attack. The article was written in that area.

Once again, thank you for the well-reasoned comment.

I have to say, much of this sounds very similar to something I might have said while trying to convince someone that there is some nuance to the Christian Right. The rest of if though is still worth thinking over some more for sure. Especially the bit about how this space is a bit tailored towards leftist view points. Maybe I am expecting too much in a place where people should be able to throw an off the cuff “goddam repubtards” without being called on it.

Still, I think some of the comments really do push that boundary; including OC’s immediate accusation of some generic Christian being the murder.

Thank you for the clarification.

I have read that multiple times. I just think it is a shite theory.

I eventually need to put it in my own words, but /u/theneverfox@pawb.social’s post is pretty good for now: (emphasis added)

There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else

Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.

Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.

There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.

The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.

I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society

There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges

https://lemmy.world/comment/3754441

Looks like they are both bigots from here.

Yeah, party affiliation is way more important than who a person is or how they live their life!

You can be a wise, moral and ethical person without religion

I fully agree.

Edit: That in no way discounts the idea that there is a lot of wisdom in religion. Even if some of it is outdated.

That is not really what I was referring to Edit: when I said I doubt we are beyond the need for religion. There is a (debated) theory that religion was important in moving from tribalism towards modern civilization. Specifically, the belief that a god or gods would punish your neighbor if he was doing evil behind your back may have been a necessary concept in our development. Even in modern times, the idea that our fellow citizens may be doing evil without recourse is a serious consideration. It may be adding to our current societal stresses.

Of course, that could be all horse shit, but I am leaned slightly towards that opinion at present.

Expression of Religion is a choice. Belief in religion is often more fundamental to who a person is.

once they can get their own fucking house in order

This is the fundamental problem right here. There is no house. There are neighborhoods worth of houses. Some of them not even next to each other. Some of them share outdated morale codes. Some of them have moral codes you and I could both respect. They are no more in control of each other than we are of them.

It is one of the definite weaknesses of all the separate denominations. If there was only one Christian group, we could try to talk with the Pope and the other Patriarchs and potentially have them all heard the group in the same direction.

Just think of the Westboro Baptists, so shameful that even the KKK denounced them on their home page a few years back.

It is a bit on the nose.

Thank you for the link. The article from that comment was far superior.

I am sorry to hear that Josh lost his life like that. Seems like Philly lost a good guy.

Hopefully it wasn’t actually the domestic option. It is a hard thought to think that someone he helped out by letting them live there would come back to kill him.

Also, I am glad to hear that his friends are looking into rehoming his rescued cat friend.

Same here.

I have an uncle who was killed due to an article he was doing research for. Sadly, he ended up in a coma and then someone came back to finish the job. It had a large impact on my mother and her siblings, though it was a few years before I was born. I had always wondered how much of it was an exaggeration until a couple years ago when we found an article saying basically the same things the aunts and uncles always had.

It sounds an awful like you are saying, “Well yeah, we are bigots, but we are bigots because they deserve it!”

Am I misunderstanding you?

I appreciate the well-thought out and verbose response. Have an upvote!

Now to the meat of it. I am not a Christian, I am someone who is tired of some bigots getting a pass and some bigots getting their whole instances defederated. Since there is clearly a disinterest in heavy-handed moderation to get rid of the one-sided bigotry then the best recourse is open discussion.

I have no doubt that the people here who are heavily prejudiced against religion have their reasons, but that does not mean that their words are good or acceptable in an open forum. When people express their ideas in socially unacceptable ways they should be called out and down-voted, but currently they they are mostly receiving positive responses. This is wrong. It is a mark against the communities and instances they are posting those statements in.

It does not matter why someone feels justified for spewing hate, they should be called-out or at least shunned. If you want to help someone work through their hate, that is great. I just want to stop being embarrassed by it. Despite being a great concept, I literally cannot recommend Lemmy to anyone because the top comment is so often some trash about how “all conservatives are fascists” or a gay activist died “it must be a Christian.”

this drug related domestic dispute murder.

Is that what it is looking like now? The article was significantly sparse on details.

as evidence for what Christianity in the US is like is intentionally misleading

If I was trying to claim that is that standard view, then it would be misleading. Since I was actually claiming that there are a wide variety of beliefs among Christians, some even aligning with your values, it is pretty spot on representation. Treating them all the same is prejudicial behavior.

A fair-minded person would give an individual a chance to act like an asshole before treating them like trash.

You seem to not understand that word either. Nothing I said was bigoted.

What? I didn’t call anything you said bigotry. Just adjusted the term I used based on your previous statement.

Calling out your hateful ideology for what it is, is not bigotry.

I am not sure what this means unless you think I am religious. I am not.