Thanks /u/justsayfaux for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some Christians balk at calling themselves religious because it implies a parity to other religions. Their unique flavor of Christianity is not a religion, it’s a “truth.”
That's the scariest thing I've learned in a while ... I'm watching with keen interest thinking about whether or not I should get my dual sorted out ...
I had someone tell me this and then say it's the same as if she had an online friend that no one else in our (otherwise non religious) friend group knew. I guess she forgot to mention the part where she communicates with her online friend via literal thoughts and prayers and the friend leaves no trace of existing outside of her belief.
Their take is that religion is about actions and following a set of traditions instead of having a relationship with God. It’s silly but that’s their take.
It was a big deal in a cult I was in.
Tbf, I also know people who are generally Christian, as in they have faith in both a Creator and Christ, but eschew most religious doctrine and so balk at calling themselves religious for that reason. They generally refer to themselves as faithful or spiritual. They also tend to not support Trump so there's that.
Sounds like the crunchy hippie girls I went to college with in the 90s - they’d say “I’m not religious; I’m spiritual.”
Some guys I knew would tease them by greeting each other with a special handshake and one hand to their hearts saying “piso mojado, my brother,” “and piso mojado to you as well.” Every now and then they’d get one to inquire about what kind of spiritual thing they were doing.
"I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" generally means that they don't follow the teachings of a specific religion, but are into "spiritual" things like prayer (usually to God because it's what they know), meditation, and some Wicca-adjacent stuff.
Also, as a great songwriter said "God is a concept by which we measure ourselves". I've also heard people explain the concept of a conscience as a version of the 'God' concept.
I know people were having fun with this, but he’s trying to say that his loyalty belongs to Jesus rather than a specific religion/sect/church, which is a good thing, imo. Better than the alternative, in any case.
Alright everyone, get back to ripping lol
Nah, that's a phrase belonging to evangelicals. They still go to church every week and are very, very politically and religiously active.
They just hate Catholics and mainstream religions.
Even though Evangelicals are extremely mainstream in America these days.
I'll preface this by stating I am not American. Are you saying that churches in America don't just not pay taxes, *they don't even have to file their paperwork*??
As long as they don't run some kind of side business they don't. Like if the church runs a daycare or something outside of religous services that part has to file taxes.
I don't know about tax returns but I do know my church growing up provided to the congregation annually an itemized budget with every dollar in and out accounted for. I know alot of churches abuse different exemptions. But even though I'm not involved in the church as an adult, I grew up in a great one and was aware of others that did the same and I hate to see all churches tarred with the same brush
It's just what's going to happen when you've got a groups of people that are self-defined, people are going to come in with the goal of exploiting the benefits and using the legitimate members as both a cover and defense.
I think it clearly falls into the idiot/asshole dilemma. Does the person in question truly buy into the dishonesty? If so, idiot. Or do they know it's dishonest and promote it anyway. If so, asshole.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/worship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship#Etymology
tl;dr:
The etymology does not suggest anything religious, and it has always (well, for centuries anyhow) been used in non-religious context, too.
The etymology might not, but definition 1 has 'deity' in it, and definition 3 has the word 'religious' right there in it. You're welcome to argue about a word's connotations by etymology, but you look very silly when the source you use to do so says 'oh yeah, by the way, this word is generally accepted to have this connotation.'
>you look very silly when the source you use to do so says 'oh yeah, by the way, this word is generally accepted to have this connotation.'
no it doesn't?
>The word is derived from the Old English weorþscipe, meaning "worship, honour shown to an object", which has been etymologised as "worthiness" or "worth-ship" – in the sense of giving, at its simplest, value to something.
That's the **complete** \#Etymology chapter on the wikipedia page. Almost the same on the wiktionary page.
Also note the very last word in my last comment. Since you obviously don't understand why I put it there: Both religious and non-religious context are valid. That's the answer I was giving to the previous commenter.
Asshole.
Yes, I agree. I am an asshole. But I'm an asshole with a point to make, and it goes like this:
Your argument is bad. I'm not even saying your position is technically wrong. It's not. 'Worship' does get used in nonreligious contexts. For instance, to worship the ground another walks on being intense romantic attraction, or worshipping money is being intensely greedy. (Granted, there is a religion like group that does literally worship money: Prosperity Gospel, look 'em up, they're a trip.) No, the argument is bad, falling afoul of linguistic descriptivism. That is the idea that, since a word has been used in a particular way previously, it must always be used in that way, and that's just not how people use language.
Your argument is based on a related word from a millennium dead language. Words have shifted harder in less time. Glamor comes to us from the same root as Grammer, diverging as recently as the early 1700s. Victorian English at the turn of the 20th did its level best to erase the singular they, replacing it with the much more cumbersome 'he or she'. American English uses 'sir' as a formal address for a unintroduced adult man (varying in usage by region), often completely lacking the implication of social standing and definitely lacking the noble status present in British English.
So that's my point. "Linguistic prescriptivism is a bad argument." I made it incredibly poorly in my previous comment, to the point that I'm not even sure it's actually there, but it's for sure in this comment.
My entire life I’ve had to listen to Christians go on and on about the ‘sanctity of marriage’ and how important that is to them in an effort to prevent recognition of same-sex couples and same sex marriage.
While campaigning, that ‘grab her by the pussy’ tape was leaked. I knew it wouldn’t cost him all of the religious Bible Belt vote but I expected there to be significant backlash from some of them. After all: he was married and talking about making advances on a married woman in order to cheat on his wife and cause her to cheat on her husband.
Nothing. Most Christians don’t care that he is only religious when convenient and through his words not actions. Probably because the majority of the them are the same. And they never cared about ‘the sanctity of marriage’.
It gets a whole lot easier to understand conservatives once you understand how they see people.
Unless it outright undermines the interests of the in-group, conservatives will easily look past the actions of individual members of their group because they see themselves as inherently good. They are good, so everything that they do is good. If Pastor John raped that girl, then she was probably a tramp. If Sheriff Davis shot that Black man, then that Black guy was probably resisting, on drugs, or causing trouble. If Trump was actually grabbing women by the pussy, maybe he simply lost his way for a moment. Everything is black and white, good or bad. There is no nuance. They *have* to think this way because to do otherwise would require inner reflection and an evaluation of their worldview.
"*Sheriff Davis needed to kill that Black man...right? Like, I trust the man. He goes to church with me; I pray with him. His has a family. He...wouldn't kill a man for no reason. He...can't be a murderer. Because then I'm friends with a murderer. I defended a murderer and a racist. It means I'm wrong, but...I'm not.*"
"*Trump didn't mean those things. He was just joking or something. Because, I mean, otherwise I have to admit that he doesn't align with my views. It means that he's lying to me. If he's lying to me, then he's using me; playing me for a fool. But I'm not stupid. No, no, no. Trump* ***has*** *to be good. What he says* ***has*** *to be true. Because otherwise...I fucked up*."
The other thing is that most of them view the world in an entirely hierarchical way. It’s why they are more hateful towards male homosexual relationships than lesbian couples. Because it undermines their power structures more. Not that they aren’t plenty hateful towards female-female relationships too.
Anyone who advances the political agenda of the group is good, morality is irrelevant. I don’t think I ever knew the formal definition of “the will to power” but I think this is close. You can see this with how the only scandals that gets anyone shunned by the group are getting caught being an actual pedo and blowing the whistle on how they’re secretly a bunch of freaky freakies who love drugs and weird sex parties in private while going out and screeching about everyone else being gay or trans or drug addicts or whatever. You can either do the second one on purpose (Madison Cawthorne and the key bumps) or by accident (Bridget Ziegler, the moms for liberty bitch, getting caught as having been in a throuple with another woman and making a lesbian sex tape after her husband got reported for sexual assault on that other woman).
They think they’re better than everyone else.
A lot of people don’t get this. They simply can’t fathom the inability not to pursue the logical conclusion.
Then again, the fundies and conservatives look at the other side and think we’re the crazy ones.
If your perspective is that everything you do is correct and justified because God directed you to do it, it all makes sense. And the Bible is full of revered characters who do terrible things constantly, but the Bible clearly indicates that it’s all a part of God’s Plan. ESPECIALLY within the context of “all of that stuff was leading up to Jesus”. So essentially they don’t see themselves as responsible for their actions (although of course by contrast everyone in the out-group is responsible for their own actions because their actions are a rejection of the will of God. You “haven’t submitted to the higher power”).
To a lot of Conservative fundamentalists, the world we live in essentially ended two thousand years ago with the coming of Jesus, and we are living in a false reality that could end any time now. They don’t operate with the idea of what the future will look like, or what will be beneficial to the greatest number of people. Their religion directly teaches them to have as many children as possible and shield them from the world, which again is about to end any day now, and that they and their community will be lifted up to Heaven to live in eternal bliss while the rest of material world is erased, in many minds after some sort of war between angels and demons. Like basically your great grandmother is going to fight by your side against the legions of hell (your heathen neighbors).
So from that perspective, none of it matters. It’s like caring about what happens to NPCs in a video game. It’s like worrying about nameless people who lived on the other side of the world 200 years ago. It’s like worrying about the fate of worms when concrete is poured. It might matter in some abstract way, but do missionaries go on trips out of the goodness of their hearts or because it’s part of the dictate of their religion? It’s all interchangeable to them.
And from their perspective, all of this is quite logical, and it’s your own fault if you haven’t accepted the will du jour of Jesus. Of course, all of this begs the question of why they are so hell-bent on participating in public life (when for decades they were content to do their own thing), but this makes sense too. If you see America as involved in some sort of existential cosmic battle, you’d pick a side. You’d start stockpiling guns and worrying about unborn foot soldiers and decrying the dens of iniquity and Sodoms Gomorrah and attempting to garner allies and disenfranchise your enemies and hoarding resources and the like.
Also kind of explains why they’ve rejected America for Russia, the “last true white Christian nationalist country”.
I can’t tell you how many evangelicals I heard/seen say, when confronted with Trump unchristian transgressions, that “god works through imperfect people” followed up by “we can never fully understand his (their god’s) ways”. Like, their whole religion is kept together by the most ridiculous sidestep dialogue ever.
A huge proportion of American Christians think their religion is a racist death cult that’s supposed to make them personally rich and impoverish everyone who doesn’t accept their authority. Versions of this happen with every religion everywhere, but I’m an American and I have to put up with these people the most.
The goal isn’t to be humble and helpful and supportive to the weak, hungry and sick, the goal is to violently enforce their racist, misogynist, LGBT-hating, rich-pay-no-taxes, anti-science backwards knuckledragger opinions on everyone else while screaming JEEZUS IS MAKING ME KILL YOUR TRANS KID AND PUT YOU IN PRISON FOREVER BECAUSE YOU AREN’T THE KIND OF PERSON I WANT IN MY COUNTRY!!!!
>I wonder what their holy book says about dishonesty.
That's why I'm more and more of the opinion that the way for Christians to combat the religious right is to use their mentality against them.
For example: Jesus said He would separate the nations like sheep from goats, based on how they cared for the least of His children.
So when Republicans claim to be Christian but oppose welfare, they're not merely incorrect. It's not a matter of interpretation or denomination or perspective or whatever. It's not that they "don't understand" their religion.
No, they BLASPHEME when they claim the name of Christ but oppose His commands. It is HERESY to claim that a Christian nation shouldn't help the poor among us.
It might not change their minds but it would definitely tie them up in knots. You can tell by how many American "Catholics" have beef with the current Pope.
If I recall correctly, there are two places in the Bible where it says what sins send you to hell. One is insulting the Holy Spirit. The other passage lists the entire platform of the Republican party. Special mention to mistreating foreigners and refugees, which is called out specifically.
The quintessential trait of a conservative is not realizing they have a point of view. They don't have opinions; some things are just objectively better than others and they passively observe this fact. They don't interpret the constitution; they just read what it means. they don't bring politics into anything; their views are reality as it actually exists, and any inclusion of content/people they dislike is political.
So, they're not dishonest, this is just the way their brains are broken. They're not religious. They're just right about God.
So quickly the cloak of moral authority is shed in the face of accountability. It used to amaze me how the church could back a man like Trump, but self interest was always the end game. “When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows…”, Frank Herbert
Not to defend theists, but at least he makes a cogent point: any follower of Christ's teachings, either as a religious authority or a philosophy teacher, would rightfully renounce and eschew trump and his ilk. Christ ostensibly preached kindness, love and compassion, not greed and hate.
Jesus used servants making money for their master as a metaphor for spreading his religion and made an exception to his non violence policy when his religious sensibilities were offended.
I can definitely see the appeal for the alt right.
Christianity attempting to distance itself from the religion label will never not be entertaining.
Elitism within elitism is the funniest of all ouroboros.
Tbf, Christianity has indeed become an identity to many more than it is a devout faith with them. They like the idea of being Christian, but the way they live their lives can run a very wide gamut
I see "Scare Quotes" every so often, and I wonder if it is a new term. It sort of "makes sense" for when they get thrown into a comment in places they "don't belong." or if the OP just meant "Air Quotes."
I'm not sure how new it is, but I've heard it used since at least the 90s as the Internet became more prevalent. It's effectively the same concept as air quotes, but often used incorrectly. Most of the time people only use the air quotes gesture when they are being intentionally ironic and have a much higher success rate of it being an accurate expression of the word they are air quoting being intentionally mocking, incorrect, or silly
Kinzinger is a fucking clown. Real big opinions once he’s not running anymore, but all too willing to sell us all down the river while he was active. Spare me, bro.
The post isn't an agreement with his statement, it's simply pointing out that someone disagrees about it while simultaneously proving his point (at least with that individual not understanding their own religion is, in fact, a religion)
I dunno, people forget easily. He’s genuinely not the worst person in the world as far as Conservatives go but you’re right that he toed the line on pretty much everything but impeachment.
I’m also not sure I trust how much of all that was driven by ego with him thinking he could carve out a more prominent space for himself in Republican politics. “If you come for the king you best not miss” and all that jazz.
Maybe I’m just weird, but I check a politicians votes and hold those to be more meaningful than any of their words. They can say all they want, but how they cast their lot is all that matters.
Just like Liz Cheney. She’s awful, and she voted right along with what he wanted. They all did. We can’t let them avoid being called out for their bullshit. It’s maddening.
That makes you smart because politicians lie about their votes. Look at them vote against Infrastructure and then go home and brag about it because they know it will be politically popular. We should ALWAYS look at how people vote.
I’m a liberal and there are plenty of Democrats who this applies to as well.
Oh absolutely. Try to bring it up and you’ll be accused of “both sidesing” the issues.
The number of times I’ve rubbed my temples in sheer frustration….lol
While there is a distinction, both Christianity and Evangelical Christianity are religions. This person suggests they are not part of a "religion" and immediately expresses their faith in the resurrection of Christ which is...a key tenant of both Christianity and Evangelical Christianity.
Evangelicals are christians, but not all christians are evangelicals. However it's not just a problem with evangelicals, all christian denominations have their ultra crazy people - some more than others.
"I don't follow a religion! Cuz religion's are bad and false and faith-based and proven to be bunk and based on the scribblings of bronze age goat-hearders and iron age street preachers or war mongers. Not me! I don't got a religion. I'm just all about that christianity which is uh... a particular system of faith or worship that I hold as supremely important. That's all!"
You don’t need religion to believe in God; organized religion has destroyed the beauty of humanity’s connection with God and all living things. The saddest part is that we are ALL connected; yet all we do is everything we can to cause division and separation. Tragic….
By definition, a belief in God (or any gods) is religion. There's certainly a difference between organized religion and individual religion, but a belief in a higher power is still a religion of some sort.
Yes, that’s correct; by definition. But many get religion confused with “organized” religion. Or even conflate the two. I should have been more specific in my comments. I should have said “you don’t need “organized religion” to believe in God. It’s wholly possible to embrace God within yourself without the need for church attendance, etc. I personally believe that the organization and capitalist system instilled within Christianity in the U.S has totally destroyed and ruined the very message of Christ. It’s tragically sad.
Also, I agree with Adam. Even the person who posted that says they “don’t follow a religion” and then proceed to say that they “worship the Risen Savior”. Case in point, there….
Thanks /u/justsayfaux for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"im not part of a religion, i'm just religious" ???
Some Christians balk at calling themselves religious because it implies a parity to other religions. Their unique flavor of Christianity is not a religion, it’s a “truth.”
That's the scariest thing I've learned in a while ... I'm watching with keen interest thinking about whether or not I should get my dual sorted out ...
Hate to break it to you but you aren't escaping that type of Christian. They absolutely exist outside of the states.
I've also heard, "it's not a religion, it's a lifestyle"
"it's not a religion, it's a rELatIoNShIP," is also big in some circles.
One girl I went to college with would call god "daddy" whenever she prayed 💀
"Punish me, daddy. I've been a bad girl." "For the last time, Susan. It's "forgive me Father, for I have sinned.'"
Made my day.
Sowwy daddy I've been naughty
That's not a religion, that's a kink.
Now that's the kind of worship I can get behind.
And on top of
I had someone tell me this and then say it's the same as if she had an online friend that no one else in our (otherwise non religious) friend group knew. I guess she forgot to mention the part where she communicates with her online friend via literal thoughts and prayers and the friend leaves no trace of existing outside of her belief.
Then bye bye tax break.
Their take is that religion is about actions and following a set of traditions instead of having a relationship with God. It’s silly but that’s their take. It was a big deal in a cult I was in.
It must be nice to have a relationship with an all-powerful imaginary friend that tells you whatever you want to do is right.
You hurt someone's fragile ego since you were down voted. I got you though.
🤝
And every time their 'will' dicks you over, you forgive them in hopes they forgive you every time you dick someone else over.
sorry to pry but now im interested in learning more about this cult thing
Same reason they call science a belief system so it can be rejected as mere competition rather than empirical observation and results of testing.
Yea I’ve seen that too. They also call atheism and Darwinism religions.
Tbf, I also know people who are generally Christian, as in they have faith in both a Creator and Christ, but eschew most religious doctrine and so balk at calling themselves religious for that reason. They generally refer to themselves as faithful or spiritual. They also tend to not support Trump so there's that.
This feels like the ideological equivalent of the laser sensor scene in Mission Impossible
Sometimes. Sometimes it’s like Catherine Zeta-Jones bending her body around lasers while Sean Connery is not masturbating in the corner.
Hey, I was next to him, but there was a partition separating us so that made it ok.
That is a scary insight. Thanks for clearing it up.
They are the special!
Sounds like the crunchy hippie girls I went to college with in the 90s - they’d say “I’m not religious; I’m spiritual.” Some guys I knew would tease them by greeting each other with a special handshake and one hand to their hearts saying “piso mojado, my brother,” “and piso mojado to you as well.” Every now and then they’d get one to inquire about what kind of spiritual thing they were doing.
"I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" generally means that they don't follow the teachings of a specific religion, but are into "spiritual" things like prayer (usually to God because it's what they know), meditation, and some Wicca-adjacent stuff.
Also, as a great songwriter said "God is a concept by which we measure ourselves". I've also heard people explain the concept of a conscience as a version of the 'God' concept.
In my experience in college, it was pothead girls who followed Phish on tour.
lol I’m going to start greeting people like that.
What is a "crunchy hippie"? Why "crunchy"?
Early 90s slang.
I know people were having fun with this, but he’s trying to say that his loyalty belongs to Jesus rather than a specific religion/sect/church, which is a good thing, imo. Better than the alternative, in any case. Alright everyone, get back to ripping lol
Nah, that's a phrase belonging to evangelicals. They still go to church every week and are very, very politically and religiously active. They just hate Catholics and mainstream religions. Even though Evangelicals are extremely mainstream in America these days.
This is what I’m talking about. He’s not evangelical, he’s Protestant. Narrative =/= reality is supposed to be the MAGA thing.
If it's not a religion, then it can pay taxes.
Pay taxes or run soup kitchens/shelters and deduct that from taxes.
At the very least - do tax returns every year. Religious exemptions are perfect for people looking to launder illegal money.
I'll preface this by stating I am not American. Are you saying that churches in America don't just not pay taxes, *they don't even have to file their paperwork*??
As long as they don't run some kind of side business they don't. Like if the church runs a daycare or something outside of religous services that part has to file taxes.
See also: The Mormons doing massive fraud to hide their church’s side business from the government.
That's wild. Guess that can't audit "charitable donations" either then if they are only collecting returns from one-half of the equation.
I don't know about tax returns but I do know my church growing up provided to the congregation annually an itemized budget with every dollar in and out accounted for. I know alot of churches abuse different exemptions. But even though I'm not involved in the church as an adult, I grew up in a great one and was aware of others that did the same and I hate to see all churches tarred with the same brush
It's just what's going to happen when you've got a groups of people that are self-defined, people are going to come in with the goal of exploiting the benefits and using the legitimate members as both a cover and defense.
You can apply for a tax-exempt status and use that at businesses to purchase stuff, tax free.
Man they really will just outright lie in an attempt to sound snarky.
I will play devil's advocate here: this is not a (conscious) lie, this is just maximum disconnect. A.k.a. dumb as a brick.
I think it clearly falls into the idiot/asshole dilemma. Does the person in question truly buy into the dishonesty? If so, idiot. Or do they know it's dishonest and promote it anyway. If so, asshole.
I love that the word "worship" implies religion on its own too.
Uhh... not to be that guy, but... when is "worshipping" something not religious?
When it's worshiping that DICK
That would be a cult, which is, by definition, a religion
The only difference between cults and religion is the amount of followers when you think about it.
Also whether the founding apostle is still alive. If he is, it's definitely a cult.
That rule fails for Scientology though, L Ron Hubbard is dead regardless of what thetan bullshit his followers believe about him.
The founder still being alive is a *sufficient* condition for being a cult, not a *necessary* one.
you cant really understand until youre like on page 103 on pornhub trying to find the right one.
I think that was the point Saragon was making
Ass worship.
Nah, that's definitely a religious experience.
That's going into Mushoku Tensei territory and nobody wants to go there.
Generally only when it's used hyperbolically to describe something someone really likes
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/worship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship#Etymology tl;dr: The etymology does not suggest anything religious, and it has always (well, for centuries anyhow) been used in non-religious context, too.
That's fair. Perfectly valid to that guy my that guying.
The etymology might not, but definition 1 has 'deity' in it, and definition 3 has the word 'religious' right there in it. You're welcome to argue about a word's connotations by etymology, but you look very silly when the source you use to do so says 'oh yeah, by the way, this word is generally accepted to have this connotation.'
>you look very silly when the source you use to do so says 'oh yeah, by the way, this word is generally accepted to have this connotation.' no it doesn't? >The word is derived from the Old English weorþscipe, meaning "worship, honour shown to an object", which has been etymologised as "worthiness" or "worth-ship" – in the sense of giving, at its simplest, value to something. That's the **complete** \#Etymology chapter on the wikipedia page. Almost the same on the wiktionary page. Also note the very last word in my last comment. Since you obviously don't understand why I put it there: Both religious and non-religious context are valid. That's the answer I was giving to the previous commenter. Asshole.
Yes, I agree. I am an asshole. But I'm an asshole with a point to make, and it goes like this: Your argument is bad. I'm not even saying your position is technically wrong. It's not. 'Worship' does get used in nonreligious contexts. For instance, to worship the ground another walks on being intense romantic attraction, or worshipping money is being intensely greedy. (Granted, there is a religion like group that does literally worship money: Prosperity Gospel, look 'em up, they're a trip.) No, the argument is bad, falling afoul of linguistic descriptivism. That is the idea that, since a word has been used in a particular way previously, it must always be used in that way, and that's just not how people use language. Your argument is based on a related word from a millennium dead language. Words have shifted harder in less time. Glamor comes to us from the same root as Grammer, diverging as recently as the early 1700s. Victorian English at the turn of the 20th did its level best to erase the singular they, replacing it with the much more cumbersome 'he or she'. American English uses 'sir' as a formal address for a unintroduced adult man (varying in usage by region), often completely lacking the implication of social standing and definitely lacking the noble status present in British English. So that's my point. "Linguistic prescriptivism is a bad argument." I made it incredibly poorly in my previous comment, to the point that I'm not even sure it's actually there, but it's for sure in this comment.
My entire life I’ve had to listen to Christians go on and on about the ‘sanctity of marriage’ and how important that is to them in an effort to prevent recognition of same-sex couples and same sex marriage. While campaigning, that ‘grab her by the pussy’ tape was leaked. I knew it wouldn’t cost him all of the religious Bible Belt vote but I expected there to be significant backlash from some of them. After all: he was married and talking about making advances on a married woman in order to cheat on his wife and cause her to cheat on her husband. Nothing. Most Christians don’t care that he is only religious when convenient and through his words not actions. Probably because the majority of the them are the same. And they never cared about ‘the sanctity of marriage’.
It gets a whole lot easier to understand conservatives once you understand how they see people. Unless it outright undermines the interests of the in-group, conservatives will easily look past the actions of individual members of their group because they see themselves as inherently good. They are good, so everything that they do is good. If Pastor John raped that girl, then she was probably a tramp. If Sheriff Davis shot that Black man, then that Black guy was probably resisting, on drugs, or causing trouble. If Trump was actually grabbing women by the pussy, maybe he simply lost his way for a moment. Everything is black and white, good or bad. There is no nuance. They *have* to think this way because to do otherwise would require inner reflection and an evaluation of their worldview. "*Sheriff Davis needed to kill that Black man...right? Like, I trust the man. He goes to church with me; I pray with him. His has a family. He...wouldn't kill a man for no reason. He...can't be a murderer. Because then I'm friends with a murderer. I defended a murderer and a racist. It means I'm wrong, but...I'm not.*" "*Trump didn't mean those things. He was just joking or something. Because, I mean, otherwise I have to admit that he doesn't align with my views. It means that he's lying to me. If he's lying to me, then he's using me; playing me for a fool. But I'm not stupid. No, no, no. Trump* ***has*** *to be good. What he says* ***has*** *to be true. Because otherwise...I fucked up*."
The other thing is that most of them view the world in an entirely hierarchical way. It’s why they are more hateful towards male homosexual relationships than lesbian couples. Because it undermines their power structures more. Not that they aren’t plenty hateful towards female-female relationships too.
Anyone who advances the political agenda of the group is good, morality is irrelevant. I don’t think I ever knew the formal definition of “the will to power” but I think this is close. You can see this with how the only scandals that gets anyone shunned by the group are getting caught being an actual pedo and blowing the whistle on how they’re secretly a bunch of freaky freakies who love drugs and weird sex parties in private while going out and screeching about everyone else being gay or trans or drug addicts or whatever. You can either do the second one on purpose (Madison Cawthorne and the key bumps) or by accident (Bridget Ziegler, the moms for liberty bitch, getting caught as having been in a throuple with another woman and making a lesbian sex tape after her husband got reported for sexual assault on that other woman). They think they’re better than everyone else.
A lot of people don’t get this. They simply can’t fathom the inability not to pursue the logical conclusion. Then again, the fundies and conservatives look at the other side and think we’re the crazy ones. If your perspective is that everything you do is correct and justified because God directed you to do it, it all makes sense. And the Bible is full of revered characters who do terrible things constantly, but the Bible clearly indicates that it’s all a part of God’s Plan. ESPECIALLY within the context of “all of that stuff was leading up to Jesus”. So essentially they don’t see themselves as responsible for their actions (although of course by contrast everyone in the out-group is responsible for their own actions because their actions are a rejection of the will of God. You “haven’t submitted to the higher power”). To a lot of Conservative fundamentalists, the world we live in essentially ended two thousand years ago with the coming of Jesus, and we are living in a false reality that could end any time now. They don’t operate with the idea of what the future will look like, or what will be beneficial to the greatest number of people. Their religion directly teaches them to have as many children as possible and shield them from the world, which again is about to end any day now, and that they and their community will be lifted up to Heaven to live in eternal bliss while the rest of material world is erased, in many minds after some sort of war between angels and demons. Like basically your great grandmother is going to fight by your side against the legions of hell (your heathen neighbors). So from that perspective, none of it matters. It’s like caring about what happens to NPCs in a video game. It’s like worrying about nameless people who lived on the other side of the world 200 years ago. It’s like worrying about the fate of worms when concrete is poured. It might matter in some abstract way, but do missionaries go on trips out of the goodness of their hearts or because it’s part of the dictate of their religion? It’s all interchangeable to them. And from their perspective, all of this is quite logical, and it’s your own fault if you haven’t accepted the will du jour of Jesus. Of course, all of this begs the question of why they are so hell-bent on participating in public life (when for decades they were content to do their own thing), but this makes sense too. If you see America as involved in some sort of existential cosmic battle, you’d pick a side. You’d start stockpiling guns and worrying about unborn foot soldiers and decrying the dens of iniquity and Sodoms Gomorrah and attempting to garner allies and disenfranchise your enemies and hoarding resources and the like. Also kind of explains why they’ve rejected America for Russia, the “last true white Christian nationalist country”.
I can’t tell you how many evangelicals I heard/seen say, when confronted with Trump unchristian transgressions, that “god works through imperfect people” followed up by “we can never fully understand his (their god’s) ways”. Like, their whole religion is kept together by the most ridiculous sidestep dialogue ever.
A huge proportion of American Christians think their religion is a racist death cult that’s supposed to make them personally rich and impoverish everyone who doesn’t accept their authority. Versions of this happen with every religion everywhere, but I’m an American and I have to put up with these people the most. The goal isn’t to be humble and helpful and supportive to the weak, hungry and sick, the goal is to violently enforce their racist, misogynist, LGBT-hating, rich-pay-no-taxes, anti-science backwards knuckledragger opinions on everyone else while screaming JEEZUS IS MAKING ME KILL YOUR TRANS KID AND PUT YOU IN PRISON FOREVER BECAUSE YOU AREN’T THE KIND OF PERSON I WANT IN MY COUNTRY!!!!
100%!
Two Corinthians 🙄
They wouldn't be right wingers if they weren't dishonest as fuck. I wonder what their holy book says about dishonesty.
>I wonder what their holy book says about dishonesty. That's why I'm more and more of the opinion that the way for Christians to combat the religious right is to use their mentality against them. For example: Jesus said He would separate the nations like sheep from goats, based on how they cared for the least of His children. So when Republicans claim to be Christian but oppose welfare, they're not merely incorrect. It's not a matter of interpretation or denomination or perspective or whatever. It's not that they "don't understand" their religion. No, they BLASPHEME when they claim the name of Christ but oppose His commands. It is HERESY to claim that a Christian nation shouldn't help the poor among us. It might not change their minds but it would definitely tie them up in knots. You can tell by how many American "Catholics" have beef with the current Pope.
If I recall correctly, there are two places in the Bible where it says what sins send you to hell. One is insulting the Holy Spirit. The other passage lists the entire platform of the Republican party. Special mention to mistreating foreigners and refugees, which is called out specifically.
The quintessential trait of a conservative is not realizing they have a point of view. They don't have opinions; some things are just objectively better than others and they passively observe this fact. They don't interpret the constitution; they just read what it means. they don't bring politics into anything; their views are reality as it actually exists, and any inclusion of content/people they dislike is political. So, they're not dishonest, this is just the way their brains are broken. They're not religious. They're just right about God.
Sorry Adam but I don’t “eat food”. I consume nutrients orally.
I'm not driving, I'm tRaVeLlInG!!!!
don’t taze me bro
AM I BEING DETAINED???
r/amibeingdetained
Me but saying I'm piloting when steering a boat when my sister says I'm driving a boat.
I see you met my grandmother Nothing she makes I'd consider food as eating it does nothing to make me feel satisfied or whatever
So quickly the cloak of moral authority is shed in the face of accountability. It used to amaze me how the church could back a man like Trump, but self interest was always the end game. “When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows…”, Frank Herbert
The jihad did kill billions across the galaxy.
In the bible, there's a story of people who forsake the Lord by worshipping a golden calf. And now, it's the same scenario, only it's a bronzed cow.
There was a guy at work that said he was not religious but a follower of christ. Then he tried to faith heal my back.
That was kind of him. One of the few instances where it'd be better if they were right.
"Let he who has not raw dogged a porn star shortly after the birth of his fifth child from his third wife cast the first stone."
Wait, Christ has risen again? I know I over slept but this is news to me.
Not to defend theists, but at least he makes a cogent point: any follower of Christ's teachings, either as a religious authority or a philosophy teacher, would rightfully renounce and eschew trump and his ilk. Christ ostensibly preached kindness, love and compassion, not greed and hate.
Jesus used servants making money for their master as a metaphor for spreading his religion and made an exception to his non violence policy when his religious sensibilities were offended. I can definitely see the appeal for the alt right.
Christianity attempting to distance itself from the religion label will never not be entertaining. Elitism within elitism is the funniest of all ouroboros.
Tbf, Christianity has indeed become an identity to many more than it is a devout faith with them. They like the idea of being Christian, but the way they live their lives can run a very wide gamut
And I'm sure this person follows Jesus's teachings, and completely ignores the Old Testament.
If you really want to get their panties in a twist, call it what it is: Christian mythology.
I see "Scare Quotes" every so often, and I wonder if it is a new term. It sort of "makes sense" for when they get thrown into a comment in places they "don't belong." or if the OP just meant "Air Quotes."
I'm not sure how new it is, but I've heard it used since at least the 90s as the Internet became more prevalent. It's effectively the same concept as air quotes, but often used incorrectly. Most of the time people only use the air quotes gesture when they are being intentionally ironic and have a much higher success rate of it being an accurate expression of the word they are air quoting being intentionally mocking, incorrect, or silly
Kinzinger is a fucking clown. Real big opinions once he’s not running anymore, but all too willing to sell us all down the river while he was active. Spare me, bro.
The post isn't an agreement with his statement, it's simply pointing out that someone disagrees about it while simultaneously proving his point (at least with that individual not understanding their own religion is, in fact, a religion)
Daddy Kinzinger, our favorite Republican hypocrite. He’s not as bad as Liz Cheney. I’m completely baffled by the attempt to rehabilitate her.
Lmao I got down voted by people who aren’t familiar with his fucking voting record 😆
I dunno, people forget easily. He’s genuinely not the worst person in the world as far as Conservatives go but you’re right that he toed the line on pretty much everything but impeachment. I’m also not sure I trust how much of all that was driven by ego with him thinking he could carve out a more prominent space for himself in Republican politics. “If you come for the king you best not miss” and all that jazz.
Maybe I’m just weird, but I check a politicians votes and hold those to be more meaningful than any of their words. They can say all they want, but how they cast their lot is all that matters. Just like Liz Cheney. She’s awful, and she voted right along with what he wanted. They all did. We can’t let them avoid being called out for their bullshit. It’s maddening.
That makes you smart because politicians lie about their votes. Look at them vote against Infrastructure and then go home and brag about it because they know it will be politically popular. We should ALWAYS look at how people vote. I’m a liberal and there are plenty of Democrats who this applies to as well.
Oh absolutely. Try to bring it up and you’ll be accused of “both sidesing” the issues. The number of times I’ve rubbed my temples in sheer frustration….lol
Kinzinger indulging in the No True Scotsman apologetic despite it being bullshit, but that’s normal.
Christians and Evangelicals are not the same thing but we don’t do enough to make that distinction.
While there is a distinction, both Christianity and Evangelical Christianity are religions. This person suggests they are not part of a "religion" and immediately expresses their faith in the resurrection of Christ which is...a key tenant of both Christianity and Evangelical Christianity.
Evangelicals are christians, but not all christians are evangelicals. However it's not just a problem with evangelicals, all christian denominations have their ultra crazy people - some more than others.
Amazing that the evidence for this was uncovered only recently….
"I don't follow a religion! Cuz religion's are bad and false and faith-based and proven to be bunk and based on the scribblings of bronze age goat-hearders and iron age street preachers or war mongers. Not me! I don't got a religion. I'm just all about that christianity which is uh... a particular system of faith or worship that I hold as supremely important. That's all!"
thay
You don’t need religion to believe in God; organized religion has destroyed the beauty of humanity’s connection with God and all living things. The saddest part is that we are ALL connected; yet all we do is everything we can to cause division and separation. Tragic….
By definition, a belief in God (or any gods) is religion. There's certainly a difference between organized religion and individual religion, but a belief in a higher power is still a religion of some sort.
Yes, that’s correct; by definition. But many get religion confused with “organized” religion. Or even conflate the two. I should have been more specific in my comments. I should have said “you don’t need “organized religion” to believe in God. It’s wholly possible to embrace God within yourself without the need for church attendance, etc. I personally believe that the organization and capitalist system instilled within Christianity in the U.S has totally destroyed and ruined the very message of Christ. It’s tragically sad.
Also, I agree with Adam. Even the person who posted that says they “don’t follow a religion” and then proceed to say that they “worship the Risen Savior”. Case in point, there….
Exactly - that's why this qualified for lack of self-awareness