10A
Young people need to understand, first and foremost, that (almost) everything you believe is wrong. Young people are inherently naive and inexperienced, and must look to their elders and the Bible to learn the proper way to think and behave. Know that God does not change and human nature does not change either. Ever. We all have a lot to learn. Humility is the key. I say this in all acknowledgement that despite my age, I still know next to nothing. If you feel hatred towards religion or anything else (or anyone else), first accept that you are wrong, and then ask God for His guidance.
Actual Christian here. This decision is not extreme, whatsoever, though I get that it appears extreme to non-believers and feminists. The thing to understand here is that Christians follow the Bible. And conversely, those who do not follow the Bible are not Christian. So let's take a look at a relevant Bible passage (1 Timothy 2:11-12):
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Now that's the word of God. It's eternal, unchanging, and dictates how He wills us to live.
It's definitely out-of-step with modern secular culture, and that's a very good thing from the Christian perspective. We are God's peculiar people (Titus 2:11-15).
Follow my above "Yes, it does" link and see.
Thank you. But judging from the number of downvotes I've received here, I'm pretty sure the community prefers to stick its fingers in its ears.
when your entire office votes “no” to you banging on drums during the workday
Heh
On reddit, I never looked at r/all, and I don't know how many people did, but it's something you only ever see if you seek it out.
My gripe here is just about the default "Homepage" value. Most people don't change defaults, and it would be more appropriate to default to "Subscriptions". That would mostly solve the problem.
Sure, a few people could still choose to go to m/all and see things from other communities. But how often does that happen? I don't think it's common enough to worry about.
You may just have to be content knowing that people that subscribe to /m/conservative go there intentionally despite the posts falling down on the all tab.
Sure, but this really isn't about that magazine specifically. It's about all minority groups with unpopular viewpoints.
I like your username, btw.
It's impolite to vote unless you're a member of the community. And by "impolite", I mean it's extremely rude. Members of the community have free reign to vote as they see fit. The result is the community's content is weighted according to its own values.
You're the third person to point out that it's technically not brigading. I think that's splitting hairs, because it's happening by design, but I hear you. I don't know the right present participle, but it seems like a moot point.
To everything you wrote after that, I wholly agree. I don't think this really is about politics, though, so much as it's about unpopular perspectives held by minority groups. IMHO the platform should encourage a diversity of thought.
Yes, I could create a defederated instance, or I could just go hang out on Gab or TruthSocial. I was hoping I'd find a more well-rounded community here, like I had on reddit. It's worth noting that reddit is strongly left-leaning, but has a bunch of conservative communities that thrive due to its configuration. But again, this isn't just about politics — it's about minority groups.
With regard to federation, that's true, but consider the bigger picture. A major news outlet discusses the up-and-coming website kbin, and a hundred million people show up to create an account. A popular search engine returns search results linking to kbin, and nobody says "I could click on that, but I have an account at some other instance, so I'll just manually edit the URL." The bigger picture is that the world wants a single instance.
With regard to the diversity of of ideas, opinions, and perspectives being up to each instance, I suppose I agree with you in principle, though I would find it deeply disappointing if any platform intentionally wanted to create a hivemind and actively silence dissenting voices. But if that's where I am, then I suppose I'll have to leave.
What a well-written, intelligent, and respectful rebuttal. Thank you.
I really wish the message of Jesus, exactly as you described it, was better understood by all of the anti-Christians. It's a seriously good message, yet so many people want to hate on it without giving it a chance.
As for the Old Testament, I'm continually blown away by how much of it foreshadows Jesus, His ministry, and His apostles. The number of times this happens is far too great for me to count, though I'm sure some biblical scholars have attempted to do so. Having grown up in the church, and clearly having read the good book, you may well be more familiar than I am with all of the foreshadowing, as I'm a convert who was raised atheist and didn't find God until my 30s. I still have a lot of catching up to do, and I'm sure I always will. But suffice it to say, there's foreshadowing through and through.
Before Christ, we made God's work more difficult. Humanity wasn't wholly ready to follow Him. Abraham and his descendants were, at least they were enough to form a series of binding covenants. But until we were ready to receive Christ, God did what needed to be done to lead His first non-begotten son to the point when Christ could successfully arrive. And that, I believe, explains why the OT played out the way it did.
As for twin roe deer, I have no doubt God appreciates the form of a woman. Otherwise He'd not have made her look as He did, and He'd not have predicated our entire civilization upon marital intimacy.
As for the scripture that we now consider canonical, do you really think God had no hand in the Church's selection? I find it implausible that He'd take the effort to inspire various works of scripture, but then leave their canonicalization unguided.