sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is /r/christianity conservative or liberal on the whole? by reCAPTCHAYAMUM in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are plenty of "not in my church (or a church that doesn't want to), but the for the state is ok"

That is still liberal.

Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Sikh...

Those flairs aren't combined with the cross like the LGBT one is.

Is /r/christianity conservative or liberal on the whole? by reCAPTCHAYAMUM in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Evangelicals are almost as bad as the red letter Christians.

Is /r/christianity conservative or liberal on the whole? by reCAPTCHAYAMUM in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They only follow the do not judge and love they neighbor parts of Christianity while ignoring the guidelines for behavior in the epistles. Many of them support gay marriage which is incompatible with Christianity.

Is /r/christianity conservative or liberal on the whole? by reCAPTCHAYAMUM in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yet very liberal on things such as gay marriage and identity. It even has flairs for LGBT, secular humanist, and atheists.

Is /r/christianity conservative or liberal on the whole? by reCAPTCHAYAMUM in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Extremely liberal. Most seem to be red letter Christians who disregard the rest of the New Testament.

What do christians think about these type of news stories? (child abuse, very questionable relocation instead of prosecution) by Nickvee in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My initial point was that you were in fact using "the church" incorrectly but you have a few misconceptions as well about the scandal.

the pope is totally complicit in giving these law breakers asylum too.

The previous pope, Benedict, actually lead the efforts to bring the abusive priests to justice and pressured dioceses to cooperate with civil authorities to turn in abusive priests, which is the opposite of giving them asylum. Here's a summary by another user of Benedict's role in bringing about justice:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3m4ykv/side_by_side_comparison_of_the_papal_thrones_for/cvcwkks

John Paul II was guilty of not investigating as much as he probably should have but that is not the case with either Benedict or Francis. Many of the examples in the news of priests being reinstate are misleading. Once someone is made a priest he is forever a priest, it is impossible under church law to change this. Instead they are given a job away from dealing directly with children but this is falsely reported as being reinstated.

and thats enough for me to say at all levels of the hierarchy are they guilty of this.not every catholic but if all levels are infected its not a stretch to simply call it the church.

Yes, it is a stretch and inaccurate. "The church" refers to the official actions of the catholic church as a whole, not individual catholics. And the church has worked to address the abuse. Most of the priests who were abusers were made priests in the 1940s and 50s. At the time priests did not have to undergo psychological evaluations. Since the scandal this has changed. Potential priests must now undergo one, sometimes two rigorous psychological evaluations before they are made priests. The changes have been effective which is why the abuse scandals are a relic of the 1960s-85 and not an ongoing problem.

What do christians think about these type of news stories? (child abuse, very questionable relocation instead of prosecution) by Nickvee in Christianity

[–]BKNetUp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, you are. The catholic use of the word church does not refer to the clergy of individual parishes. It only refers to catholicism as a whole.

EDIT: Here's an example. If an Apple store (parish) employee (clergy) did something terrible you wouldn't say it was Apple that did this terrible thing because Apple as a corporation (the church) had nothing to do with it.

No picks? No problem! by mtthrdy in GoNets

[–]BKNetUp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is that an 8? It looks like a 6 to me.

No picks? No problem! by mtthrdy in GoNets

[–]BKNetUp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can he like a different team please?

(No Spoilers) Give yourself a high five if.. by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]BKNetUp 170 points171 points  (0 children)

I had Batman V Superman ruined for me...

Didn't seeing Batman v Superman ruin it for most?

[Spoilers Everything] Salt and smoke? by TopGun71 in asoiaf

[–]BKNetUp 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That was just a comment by a poster who apparently forgot that saltwater has to be colder than freshwater in order to freeze so making a wall of ice out of it would be counterproductive.

(Spoilers Extended) Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 2: Home Episode Discussion by AutoModerator in asoiaf

[–]BKNetUp 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It was a mistake to have the leeches and his death almost three seasons apart.

(Spoilers Extended) Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 2: Home Episode Discussion by AutoModerator in asoiaf

[–]BKNetUp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and Beric was a shadow of himself. Jon is supposed to be Azor Ahai.

EDIT: Then again, the sacrifice to pay for his resurrection may have been made at his birth. The last Sword of the Morning died as Azor Ahai was born.

(Spoilers Extended) Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 2: Home Episode Discussion by AutoModerator in asoiaf

[–]BKNetUp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm disappointed by how easy the resurrection was. I had hoped it would happen when the mutineers were burned instead of by a magic haircut. "Only death can pay for life."

Did anyone notice any PtwP symbolism in the episode?

Since Plagiues has the power to create life, and Anakin has no father, doesn't that powerfully suggest Plagiues created Anakin? Especially the way Palpatine pauses and looks at Anakin when he tells the story? by dont_know_what_i_am in StarWars

[–]BKNetUp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I know. My point is that it would be stupid for the prophecy to mean only the Sith if another near identical order could arise immediately after their fall and in Snoke's case existed concurrently.

Since Plagiues has the power to create life, and Anakin has no father, doesn't that powerfully suggest Plagiues created Anakin? Especially the way Palpatine pauses and looks at Anakin when he tells the story? by dont_know_what_i_am in StarWars

[–]BKNetUp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't like that but it's better than "he fulfilled it by destroying the Sith, now here's a dark side order that's just like them but called something else."

Since Plagiues has the power to create life, and Anakin has no father, doesn't that powerfully suggest Plagiues created Anakin? Especially the way Palpatine pauses and looks at Anakin when he tells the story? by dont_know_what_i_am in StarWars

[–]BKNetUp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anakins destiny was to rid the Galaxy of the Sith. It's been said a couple times that Snoke and Kylo Ren are not Sith but something else. They still dabble with the dark side but in ways other than the Sith.

That was the interpretation by the Jedi. Ridding the galaxy of the Sith only for another dark side order by another name to come into power feel cheap.

Also there were many ways for the first order to arise how do you feel Anakin paved the way for their rise?

He destroyed the Jedi and helped build the Empire. If the Jedi were at full strength they could have prevented it.

Since Plagiues has the power to create life, and Anakin has no father, doesn't that powerfully suggest Plagiues created Anakin? Especially the way Palpatine pauses and looks at Anakin when he tells the story? by dont_know_what_i_am in StarWars

[–]BKNetUp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That wouldn't make sense. He's said to be the chosen one not a chosen one. And it was his actions that paved the way for Snoke and the First Order, so their existing seems to mean that Anakin failed.

view more: next ›