Dunno if flair is right, should I have used the nsfw?
I have now become a firm believer of Christian naturism aka recreational social nudity (yes, it is a thing - wikipedia source) and believe that my religious rights, protected by the Canadian charter of rights, allows me to walk around nude wherever I see fit.
That means that Christian naturists and nudists should have no problem walking around in front of any other church, mosque, grocery store, playgrounds, or wherever else, completely naked revealing all of god's glory to be seen. Why? Because religious rights protect me. Moreover, the Prime Minister has confirmed we don't have a place to tell others what they can, or cannot wear. I am also part jewish and I feel like perhaps questioning me at all on this is antisemitic given my faith teaches me not to question anything.
My point is, where do you draw the line? If we are going to debate the government has no place to tell people what they can or cannot wear then nudity might as well become an openly accepted thing. The government then clearly has no place to tell Christian naturists that they have to wear clothes to work or to pick up their kids from school.
Alternatively, some minor restrictions on freedoms are the cost of having a functional society. In the case of a veil, it is so we may identify and interact with the people and colleagues around us and know who we're actually talking to and so business owners aren't taken to court for human rights violations when an employee decides to dress in a full veil which can't always be accommodated in many industry. If the Christian naturists can sacrifice their nudity, perhaps the few veil wearers might show us their face while we converse with them. On the other hand, if we're going to go the other way and face coverings remain fully legitimate and legally protected by religious freedom, I would hope the people in full covering are the first to protect my religious freedom to not wear anything at all as I stand beside them in this great multicultural land.
I am not actually going to become a Christian naturist, that was intended to illustrate a discussion point on the hypocrisy of recent arguments on this subreddit.
Every so often I bump into a religious person who wants to spark up a friendly conversation about their faith. Some of them even make minor concessions, like "Heh, yeah, I know god can be a lot to wrap your head around!" Or "Yeah, I used to have doubts too." And then they want to talk about their faith and the beauty and importance of it in their lives, and they seem to expect me to listen.
From my point of view, though, this is like a coworker walking into the office with a tin foil hat on, and then casually striking up a conversation about "Heh yeah when I first heard about dark matter death rays I had my doubts, too." And then they launch into an explanation of SOME PATENTLY RIDICULOUS TRASH that they have come to believe in. And I'm supposed to sit there and nod and be polite.
If someone walks into the room snacking on a baby leg, I'm going to jump back and say "What the fuck!" And if they say "I know eating baby legs can be a lot to wrap your head around..." then I think I have every justification to treat them like they are violently insane. If they get out their 900 page book about barbecue baby recipes to try to show me how awesome it is, I think I have every justification to get the fuck out of there.
It's exactly the same with all the magical sky man horseshit. If you think you can launch into explaining this god who kills himself to save us from what he would have done to us otherwise... Just... No, sir! Stop right there. This is not a topic for adult conversation. Talk to another sky man nerd at one of your conventions but don't expect to be taken seriously in public. And don't point the finger at me for being angry / closed minded / whatever if I react negatively.
If any Christians are reading this, I hope you understand that the second you begin talking about your favorite fantasy franchise and its deep nerd lore, as if it's real, I am going to immediately think of you as F S C K I N G C R A Z Y. And I would expect you to do the same if I started explaining world events in terms of Eru Illuvatar, Rings of Power, Orcs, the Maiar, and the rest of JRR Tolkein's deep nerd fantasy lore - as if it was real.
There really is a horror to having someone behave in a visibly insane fashion but with a cool demeanor about the whole thing. "I used to think like you do. It took me a long time to understand the true meaning of smoked infant flesh. You'll find your own way to it, champ!" *wink*
S C R E A M !
This is not to go all thought
... keep reading on reddit ➡For context I spent the first 20 years of my life in the Catholic faith, and I studied theology a lot, but something I don’t understand, why are we (in Christian thought) naturally attracted to what is bad for us for example our natural desires and temptations? It is a lot harder to orient our lives towards the good, and if we followed what came natural to us we are following the path of evil (most obvious example being sexual desire). Why are we naturally oriented to do bad and we have to fight so very hard to be on the good path, why would god create us to be naturally desirably of “bad” or “evil” behavior. Not a trick or anything, asking for genuine theology.
There’s something truly amusing about people who don’t believe in evolution convincing each other not to get a lifesaving vaccine.
Some of the biggest purveyors of religious and COVID disinformation I know are now in the hospital.
Thoughts and prayers!
Edit: I’m having a lot of people quibble over the definition of “natural selection”, which is a really interesting discussion, and I appreciate it, but I’ll clarify my thinking here: “Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.” Phenotype is not solely a result of genetics. Phenotype is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, and environmental triggers. The phenotype of many Evangelical Christians is that they’re anti-vaxxers. I’m simply pointing out that COVID-19 has resulted in their decreased survival and thus reproduction. Of course, any increase in reproduction or proselytization will work against effects from COVID-19, since we’re talking about largely cultural factors here. But being in a death cult increases your risk of death from Mother Nature. Simple as that!
Further from the same book:
"We are not our own; therefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our deliberations and actions. We are not our own; therefore let us not propose it as our end, to seek what may be expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own; therefore, let us, as far as possible, forget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are God’s; to him, therefore, let us live and die."
Thus, we are god's creation and possession and inherently and impossibly evil.
Gee, thanks a lot, Johnny.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Christian_Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
Disclosure: I am nowhere near to naturalizing into the United States, however I feel that commentary concerning this issue would be beneficial for other fellow Christians with issues concerning their conscience.
Consider that Christians are subjects of the kingdom of God. Should Christians who wish to naturalize into the United States, but feel compelled by conscience to not renounce and abjure allegiance and fidelity to the kingdom of God, request an alteration of the Oath of Allegiance?
Oath of Allegiance [1]:
>I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
What is your opinion concerning the following alteration?
>I hereby declare, [and solemnly affirm], that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any [earthly] foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
One thing I have seen from anecdotes presented on here and elsewhere is someone's Christian spouse saying "you're not the same person I married". And that is, apparently, supposed to be a bad thing. I guess it depends on the direction in which someone's character arc moved, but, in a vacuum, it is not necessarily a negative. It has been repeatedly said that the only constant is change. This is applicable to humans. We do grow and change throughout our lives in some capacity whether we want to admit it or not.
Obviously, I don't want to be in a Christian marriage because I'm not a Christian. But, the other reason is because I cannot imagine being the same person five years into the relationship. That would make me feel as tho I failed as both a human and a partner.
I can imagine this sort of "you changed and that's bed" mindset in a Christian marriage happening across a variety of ages. However, this sort of thing has entered my radar overwhelmingly with Christians who got married when they were 19 or 20.
I'm not criticizing anyone who gets married at 19 or 20. If you suspect you found the love of your life and can imagine spending the rest of your life with that person, good for you! I'm genuinely happy for you. I can only speak to what I have observed. What I have observed is that people who get married that young have this idea that, because they're married, the growing stops and that just is not necessarily true. We either choose to grow or we have growth forced upon us. What phrases like "you changed" or "you're not the same person" is someone, essentially, saying that they don't like the person you are now. They prefer the person you were.
I cannot imagine an emotionally stagnated relationship and it is a big reason I don't think I would want to marry a Christian woman and most certainly why I wouldn't wanna be involved with one who subscribes to a tradwife mentality.
What are your thoughts?
Christianity is as natural as religion can get, given that we're natural beings and Christianity is true. That said, I spent a lot of time when younger in peaceful natural settings and also studied a lot of Buddhist thought - read NOT new-age. I practiced various schools of meditation and found so much peace in letting go of the intellect and ego.
I find it really hard to reconcile these two things. On one hand, I know that Christianity is true, but on the other I don't *feel* that it encompasses the beauty, serenity and peace that can be experienced meditating in a rainforest. Maybe it's something about the ruggedness of Christianity (the wood, the desert, the parchments, the nails) that is an obstacle for me.
Anyway, does anyone else understand what I'm trying to say? Do you feel this too? How have you dealt with it apart from become a Franciscan?
This article is featured in the newest edition of The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/the-shadow-penal-system-for-struggling-kids
While it doesn't deal with the Duggars directly, it lends insight into the types of "Christian" programs troubled kids like Pest can get sent to in the US.
Further from the same book:
"We are not our own; therefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our deliberations and actions. We are not our own; therefore let us not propose it as our end, to seek what may be expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own; therefore, let us, as far as possible, forget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are God’s; to him, therefore, let us live and die."
Thus, we are god's creation and possession and inherently and impossibly evil.
Gee, thanks a lot.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Christian_Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
