I don’t know any true Christians who are MAGA or racists or even bigots. But with the commonly used definition that if someone says something is bad they automatically are seen as hating the people doing it many people arguing in communities like that would be called haters or bigots and possibly be banned here on lemmy.world. Even though most true Christians don’t like MAGA and hardline rights they might feel the need to create communities like r/TrueChristian oad r/AskAChristian on exploding-heads.com or similar servers because they might think that their opinions are tolerated there. What do you think?
No true Christian would [heinous behavior] doesn’t work very well, when [heinous behavior] is basically synonymous with the brand.
If you’re asking for/requesting a soft spot for an AskAChristian community here, you should expect an abundance of difficult questions from people who came to lemmy, to get away from the wrath that is Christian love.
I’m all for difficult questions. I’m asking if people would be silenced and banned for stating what the Bible teaches.
I’m a Bible scholar. “What the Bible teaches” eludes most Christians. “What I think the Bible teaches based on my own historical-traditional interpretation” is fine. “How I approach the Bible, taking all known context into consideration” is even better. Whenever someone says, “the Bible teaches,” it’s a major red flag to me.
What I think the Bible teaches based on my own historical-traditional interpretation” is fine.
Whith this you are implying that you think your interpretation of the Bible is the right interpretation.
Whenever someone says, “the Bible teaches,” it’s a major red flag to me.
Is it only a red flag when others say they know what the Bible teaches or also when you say it?
By “I’m a scholar,” I mean I have an MA and 12 years of experience studying the historical contexts and literary history of the textual witnesses, and the history of conversation on cosmology and it’s influence on the history of interpretation. I know just enough to know I know very little, which is why you’ll never, ever hear me say something as ridiculous as “The Bible Teaches <insert dogmatic statement>.” Overconfidence in one’s own interpretation without all context (which none of us have) is a red flag in ANY field, let alone one so close to our limbic needs.
you’ll never, ever hear me say something as ridiculous as “The Bible Teaches
But you did exactly that, you just worded it a little differently. You implied that you know what the Bible teaches and it is quote “fine”.
I was saying the hypothetical quote would be fine. I wasn’t applying that to myself.
OK I think I now understand your comment better. I overlooked the quotes. Sorry.
When words are in quotes they are as if another person is saying them. OP wasn’t actually stating that as their own.
True Christians rings in a very bad way. You basically are begging for people to call you out for making a „no true scotsman“ falacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
Also, telling people that they will be tortured for etwrnity (hell) or should be outright executed (botht things religious people have done repeatedly) is ultimately bigoted and hateful. If I keep telling you that you will burn for etirnity for who you are, that is nothing short of hate.
So, should these groups be allowed to exist? Sure, I‘m all for bad arguments being publicly shared so that they can be properly scrutinized and discussed.
Just don’t expect that people will not call you out for the hateful and bigited things your holy book advocates for.
Your link has a very shallow definition of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
A better definition is on Wikipedia:
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
But I can argue that the definition of Cristian comes from the behavior and teaching of Jesus and the new testament and thus excludes bigotry hate and racism.
Also, telling people that they will be tortured for etwrnity (hell) […] is ultimately bigoted and hateful.
Unless that is really true. Then it would be unloving to not warn people.
Unless that is really true. Then it would be unloving to not warn people.
Absolutely. Just make sure it’s true and bring the evidence before you do it though. Otherwise you may be using fear-based emotional manipulation to coerce an opinion, even if that’s not your intention.
They should be allowed. Whether or not they’re welcomed is up to the individual.
As long as it’s moderated in a way that ensures it doesn’t devolve into a bunch of thinly veiled or overt jabs at the usual groups I don’t see why not. Do i have faith it will succeed? Not really
I’d say, replace Christian with any religion and ask if you’d like to see it…
When there is one you wouldn’t like to see, like Muslim, Satanism, Wicca, Athism,… I’d take that as answer.
I’m of the opinion everything that’s legal should be possible. That’s the whole idea of free speech, that goes for everybody, no matter how much you disagree with them.
“…Satanism…”
Hi :)
Personally, I think any religion should be able to practice their beliefs. In their own communities. The trouble is that most Abrahmic based religions are evangelical and feel it’s their mission to judge everyone, loudly and repeatedly, by their beliefs both in and out of their communities because to them, their religion is literally the sole truth and they don’t understand the ill feeling that generates amongst people who don’t need a god to tell them to be decent people.
I would welcome them but I don’t know how long that would last. The problem for me is that Christianity, in its current form, holds several views that I fundamentally disagree with and believe make it a hate group. I’m not tolerant of that.
Most teachings of Christianity are leftist and teach love, while many/most vocal American Christians choose to most Christian teaching and instead use out-of-context quotes to bash vulnerable populations.
Telling somebody “you live a life of sin” or “hate the sin love the sinner” is abusive even if it’s couched in friendliness. (This is bigotry, even if they think they’re good people, even if they don’t “hurt” the people they’re calling sinners)
I don’t think many people would be opposed to a community that agrees with this version of Christianity. I would push to defederates from any instance that has a large population of “prosperity gospel” or far-right Christians (choosing a friendly instance is a great draw of the fediverse).
(I was raised in an inclusive church then parents switched to a bad church - I’m agnostic now)
Edit: reading through the comments, it’s pretty apparent that this user wants more of a free speech space and is baiting people to say no (e.g. “but what if the Bible teaches <hateful things>, it’s just a fact”). Christianity is so old and its history is so much more complex than just regurgitating the King James Version - I would be against a Christian community without any historical nuance.
Do you think that a community like TrueMuslim would be welcome? What is your own attitude to having such community as neighbors?
I would be happy to argue with them.
That’s not very welcoming. Certainly not Christianly.
That is actually very “Christianly”. Jesus argued a lot. For example with the pharisees where they where wrong, etc.
Religion is as much a protected class as sexual orientation. So long as they abide by the community rules, which includes the social contract of tolerance, then they’ll be just as tolerated.
What do you understand as “tolerant”? Does it have to be always affirming? Say, I state that a certain behavior is not good. You disagree. I tolerate your opinion even though I disagree. But you state that my opinion is hateful and want it to be banned. Who of us is “tolerant”?
It’s not that complicated. If someone is in a protected class based on something you disagree with, keep it to yourself. If you’re compelled by religious conscience to pull someone out of a protected class, this isn’t the place for you.
Who defines what is a “protected class”?
Society.
Age, race, national identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious identity, etc.
These are all equally protected classes on the society of this instance, and tolerance is a social contract that says “I agree to tolerate your class.” If one can’t tolerate the fact someone is a christian, or gay, or first nations, they break the tolerance contract and will not likely be tolerated in turn.
Tolerance doesn’t mean agreement. It means leaving it alone.
If you can’t leave it alone, please feel welcome to migrate to a social instance that doesn’t protect it.
If someone comes to AskAChristian and asks what does your religion teach about xyz would I not be allowed to answer because the answer could be interpreted as harassment of a protected class?
You could answer that your religion teaches that xyz is bad because Jesus said so, or whatever.
However, the issue is, whilst you are only stating the tenets of your religion, if what your religion states is hateful - thats an issue.
Great answer!
hateful = considered hateful by the immediate society. The speaker doesn’t have to agree that it’s hateful.
But isn’t religion also one of the protected classes? I would only state what i think my religion teaches I would not discriminate or cancel anyone and let other opinions stand. But when someone tries to cancel me for stating what i think my religion teaches wouldn’t they discriminate against me because of my religion?
I’m very much in favor of this! I enjoyed /r/DebateReligion and also liked to peek into religion-specific subreddits. As an anti-religious hard atheist. We can still talk and debate about ideas in a civil manner. Disagreements can be fun and intellectually beneficial.
As for your question in the title: https://lemmy.world/c/askachristian already exists, as a placeholder. There’s also https://lemmy.world/c/debateanatheist.
If I were you, I would try to stay away from E-H if you don’t want to give your community a bad taste. It is so easy to connect Christians and white supremacists (wether justified or not), that you probably cannot have enough distance between you and them.
There already is a surprising number of Christian communities on lemmy: https://lemmyverse.net/communities?query=christian Most are tiny and have yet to see some life, but in principle it seems possible and viable almost anywhere.
I also invite you (and anyone interested in debating in good faith) to check out https://lemm.ee/c/debatereligion and https://lemmy.world/c/debatereligion
I surfed a little bit on E-H and I did not encounter any “white supremacist” content. You should also consider this: they did not defederate from lemmy.world. That means they still tolerate the opinion from here. So far only lemmy.world defederated from them because they can’t tolerate this different opinions. And it is this kind of intolerance that interprets every deviating opinion as “nazi” and “white supremacy” and everyone who doesn’t approve their lifestyle as “hateful” that let’s me doubt if AskAChristian can be here. I fear that certain questions could not be answered honestly without it being labeled as “hate” and being banned and silenced.
Anything that tries to stick to biblical principles, rather than bend or break to fit “modern views” is likely going to be called some sort of phobic, bigoted, racist, etc. People holding views countering the unchanging message of the bible simply cannot tolerate its unwavering stance against what it defines as sin. Terminally online people seem far more likely to be locked into their ideology and far less likely to engage in good faith discussion, because introspection and self-reflection are not possible when the person arguing refuses facts and logic.
It kills me that nobody can have an honest to goodness discussion about things anymore. It seems that if you don’t agree with someone’s every choice and belief these days, they see you as an enemy who MUST be silenced, by any means necessary. The world really is in a sad state, and I am ashamed to see the USA appearing to lead this charge into abject insanity. Stifling creativity, competition and speech are mainstays of this rhetoric, and yet they ignore the irony that is clearly visible when they say conservative opinion-holders are “trying to take away” someone’s rights by simply disagreeing with the premise of their argument and backing it up with facts. We have a faction of grown-ass adults who literally scream, shout, and attack you for having a differing point of view.
It would be concerning to me if you were persecuted for those beliefs here. I hope the community does well. (:
