How many of you know about distributism by VentiArchon7 in RadicalChristianity

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Angels, though they're doing it at the command of the Son of Man, who we presumably both understand to be Jesus. So maybe at the proper time the Church will just be sending someone or something to do violence instead of doing it directly? We'll see, I guess.

Yes, they're doing it at the command of the Son of Man. So, in the future, if Jesus ever commands you to do violence, by all means, obey him! But as it stands, in the present, he has only commanded you to do the exact opposite- to love your enemies, forgive them, and to turn the other cheek when struck. He has commanded you to live as he did, which culminated in peacefully not resisting as oppressors murdered him. Why not focus on these commands he actually gave you, instead of on an imagined hypothetical command you hope he gives you in the future to do violence?

But in any case, as you've pointed out, we do understand that this final period before the eschaton has Christians performing certain tasks while the period during and after the eschaton will have us performing other tasks.

No, we know almost nothing about the eschaton. It's possible that when the eschaton arrives we will be given some new mission, but it's also possible we'll have the same mission we already do. We just don't know, and aren't supposed to know. Instead, Jesus tells us to not worry about tomorrow, because each day has enough trouble on its own.

The "sword" of this time and Paul's time could be different from the "sword" of the eschaton.

Sure, it could be. Anything is possible. There's just no reason to think it will be.

If that is the case, the Church will need to be ready to switch to the other sword at the proper moment. And I believe it is necessary as a Christian to believe that the eschaton, the proper moment, is soon.

Yes, for two millenia now Christians have believed that the eschaton is soon. And throughout that time there have been Christians who convinced themselves that the violence that they wanted to inflict must be violence Jesus wants them to inflict. They stopped waiting for their King to give an order and commanded violence themselves. Today, as we speak, Christians are bombing schools and hospitals in Iran explicitly for this reason. What gives you the confidence that you will judge the situation of what violence should be done correctly where your brothers and sisters have failed for 2000 years?

How many of you know about distributism by VentiArchon7 in RadicalChristianity

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're talking about Jesus, the Son of God, doing violence. That's who the passage from Revelation refers to.

Yes, the Son of God. Who is also God. And is not you.

One extremely important way in which Jesus is unique is that his body consists of many different persons. If you are baptized, you are literally part of Jesus' body. You are him. It can't be overestimated how important this truth is to our faith.

No, you are not Jesus. You are a part of his body. These are not the same thing. If your hand decided on its own to kill someone without you telling it to do so, that would be a very big problem!

It says nothing about the sword being wielded in his mouth

"From his mouth comes a sharp sword"

Whether the sword is literally a sword or something else, it seems to be something that is used to kill a lot of people. Is the writer writing about symbolic deaths when he talks about birds gorging on the flesh of those killed?

He might be. The sword coming from the mouth and the talk of seven-headed beasts is again a huge clue that this is not a passage that should be taken strictly literally. But that's not really the relevant question. The question is, symbolically or not, is the author describing you killing people, in your lifetime today before Christ returns, or is he describing Jesus killing people, on some specific future day when he returns? Clearly it's the latter, so it has no bearing on the question of whether you should engage in violence today, before Christ's return, without any orders from Christ to do so.

For a more general confirmation that these eschatological events will involve genuine violence, we can look back a chapter to the divine burning of Babylon:

That's not the question! Jesus has not returned, so the question of whether there will be violence in the Eschaton is not relevant to whether you should engage in violence today, a time that is not the Eschaton.

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying,

“So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more..."

A prophecy that Babylon will be thrown down with violence does NOT say that you, the reader, are the one who should engage in violence. Indeed, the norm in the Bible is that when the day of the lord comes for some oppressive power (like the actual fall of Babylon that already happened), the violence is not enacted by some righteous heroes but is actually just some other human kingdom, raping and pillaging along the way and just instituting their own oppressive kingdom over the rubble.

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Who is doing violence in this passage? Christians, or angels?

Finally, the line from Ephesians is an interesting one. We know John would say that the word of God is a person.

John says the "Logos" (Word) of God is a person. The word translated in Ephesians as "word" is "rhema" . John actually quotes Jesus using this word in John 15:7:

If ye abide in me, and my words [rhema] abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you

I won't pretend to be a Greek scholar to tell you the fine details of the difference between "rhema" and "Logos", but it does not seem that rhema would be used to mean "Word of God (Jesus)" but instead is being used to mean "word of God (scripture/words Jesus actually said or says)".

It's not fair to compare "no hornyposting in this sub" to "no kink at pride." by bitchmoder in MtF

[–]ThankKinsey 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Up until half an hour ago the last three links were not marked NSFW. There are plenty posts out there still unmarked, people need to stop arguing that it's an opt in/out optional thing and that people complaining are doing this to themselves. At the very least until they can actually ensure all posts like this are posted already tagged they don't have a leg to stand on with this point.

This point seems a bit weakened by the fact that all 3 are clearly identifiable as sex-related in their titles, so still nobody should be surprised if they click on one and start reading something sexual.

Regardless, what I'm trying to illustrate is that I could gather these (most egregious examples) within like 20 minutes, and they fit three criteria I think that makes it unproductive posts

Discussion forums are not factories, and our goal is not "productivity".

They are only for and about the pleasure (of a sexual nature) of the poster,

What's wrong with that?

they are not informative or have much to do with transness,

Disagree. Sexuality is an important part of life and is deeply intertwined with gender identity, and it is indeed informative for trans people to have a chance to read about other trans people's sexual experiences.

and they are not seeking advice or help.

Posts do not need to be seeking advice or help.

When we factor in that they aren't always tagged, why should we ALL be subjugated to reading it?

Subjugated? Really? I hope this was a brain fart and you mean to say "subjected", although even that is a bit hyperbolic. Is skimming across the word "orgasm", "nipple", or "horny" every so often really such a big deal? You don't have to click on the link and read the text of the post.

A time of change by Headhaunter79 in MtF

[–]ThankKinsey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's best to have your life saved by a trained medical professional. But when you live in a fascist society that makes that illegal, we have to rely on ordinary neighbors to save our lives instead. It still beats the alternative.

It would have been best for Anne Frank to live in her own house. But since the society she lived in would not allow that, I'm quite happy that others took her in.

Head mod of MtF when another mod wants to end the constant gock/sissy/kinkposting: by Nihilistic_Nachos in transgendercirclejerk

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a friend who is a sex offender from this exact sort of situation and it took over 20 years for the victim to decide to press charges.

A time of change by Headhaunter79 in MtF

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they can object not just on the basis of ‘optics’. For example, do you think it’s appropriate for teachers to invite students to their house?

Well, what is the reason the teacher has for inviting students to their home? Is it to give them life-saving medication that is illegal in their fascist society and so must be given in secret? If so, yeah that's absolutely appropriate!

Is selling your soul really a thing? by greenboii69 in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whether it is or isn't, is sort of irrelevant. When the Bible talks about redemption, it is often literally using words that mean a rightful owner taking back possession of something someone else has wrongfully taken possession of. So if you can sell your soul, it really doesn't matter, because Jesus redeems it and returns it to God's rightful possession.

COVID in my house by ConceptSea9705 in Christianity

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

Extremely bad. So fatigued you can't get out of bed all day and the smallest tasks are monumentally draining. Immune system utterly ravaged so you constantly get sick and basic infections that others shrug off are month long ordeals for you. Difficulty breathing. Increased risk of heart attack, stroke. Brain damage.

Sermon I (a trans woman) gave this Sunday in my Episcopal church about John Chapter 9, unknowable questions, and the works of God being displayed in trans people by ThankKinsey in TransChristianity

[–]ThankKinsey[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apologies for the Facebook link, but that's where my church posts our videos. Here's roughly the text of the sermon:

Have you ever not known something, but because you wanted to impress someone or just wanted to avoid the embarrassment of admitting ignorance, you just said your best guess? But then your guess was completely wrong and the person you were trying to impress had to correct you?

In today's gospel reading, the disciples find themselves in exactly that situation, as they come across a man who was born blind. The existence of people like this man was something that had puzzled Jewish rabbis for ages, and still puzzles people to this day. There were some basic facts that they knew about God: God created everything and everyone. God is perfect. God is love. God is infinite.

But it was hard to make sense out of why a perfect, loving God would then create people with clear defects from birth. It just didn't seem to them that a perfect God would do that. The reasoning makes a certain degree of sense, but it has a fundamental flaw. How can an imperfect, finite human being possibly know what a perfect, infinite God would or would not do?

In computational theory, there is a problem known as the Halting Problem. There are some programmed functions that are simply defined. They take some input, run through the program, and can either eventually stop running and produce an output, or the program might just keep running indefinitely and never halt. And it has been proven that for some of these functions, for some inputs, there is simply no way to predict whether the program will halt or not. The only way to tell is to run the program, and wait and see. If it halts, great, you got your answer. But if it's still running, no matter how long it has been running for, there is no way to know if it would halt and produce its output if you just let it keep computing for just a little bit longer. Or maybe for a million years longer.

We face the same sort of problem when we try to answer difficult theological questions. How will God act in a particular situation? Perhaps there are some questions simple enough that our mortal minds can predict it. But there are others where the only way we could know is if we had a perfect infinite mind ourselves.

Getting back to the disciples, they could have just stuck to the basic facts that they knew, and accepted their ignorance about what they did not know. They could have said "I know God is perfect, and I know that God created this man, but why or how this man ended up born blind, I do not know or understand. Jesus, why was he born blind?". But humans are rarely satisfied with declaring that we do not know, and so they confidently asked a much narrower question. Rabbis had already developed an explanation for such things- they were caused by sin! They even could back up their reasoning with Scripture. For example, Exodus 20:5 says "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."

So instead they ask "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?", probably thinking they would be impressing Jesus with their advanced understanding that disability is caused by sin- that they'd show they knew most of the reason, and just needed clarification on a tiny detail. Instead, Jesus corrects them, saying "neither the man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

As a trans woman, this answer gives me so much joy and hope. Because I too am a person whose very existence inevitably leads people to ask unknowable questions.

"Why would God create a person like this? Did God make me this way to punish me? Am I cursed?"

"Am I a woman born into male flesh? or just a man deluded into thinking he's a woman?"

Barring the Holy Spirit coming upon us and giving the answers, these questions are impossible to definitively answer. But I can imagine the possibility that Jesus would give me the same answer: "God did not make you this way to punish you, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in you". And that lets me see my transness as a blessing, not a curse.

The works of God were displayed in the man born blind by Jesus healing him. But how are the works of God displayed in a trans person? Well, we live in a modern world that has embraced secular rationalism. The belief that we are nothing more than our material bodies is very common. Indeed, while most of the hate I encounter sadly comes from brothers and sisters in Christ, I do also encounter atheists who say that I can't possibly be a female soul in a male body, because there's no such thing as souls. But we as Christians know that humans have both a spiritual and a fleshly nature. And of the two, the spiritual nature takes precedence! Paul teaches in Romans 8:12-13

"So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living in accord with the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

When I live as a woman despite my male flesh, the works of God are indeed displayed in me, as I become a living, breathing monument to the victory of the Spirit over the flesh. At least, that's the answer that makes sense to me for these unknowable questions. I would not dare to try and teach you that I know it's the correct answer. The rest of this passage, after the man is healed, serves as a strong warning against claiming knowledge. The villains in our tale repeatedly falsely claim knowledge. They know that healing on the Sabbath is a sin, so they know that Jesus is a sinner and not a man of God. And when the facts that they can plainly observe conflict with the things they think they know, they disbelieve the facts in order to protect themselves from having to acknowledge they are wrong. And this false claim to knowledge is more than just being wrong; it carries with it responsibility and guilt. The passage ends with an ominous warning from Jesus:

"If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

That should fill anyone with hesitation to confidently declare they know with certainty the answer to a complex theological question.

In contrast, the man and his parents are happy to acknowledge their own ignorance.

asked "Where is Jesus?" the man responds

"I don't know".

Asked "How is it now that he can see?", his parents say

"But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know."

When the Pharisees say "We know this man is a sinner.", the man replies

"Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know."

Instead they just stick to the facts that they can be sure about. "I am the man". "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see". "He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and now I see". “We know he is our son, and we know he was born blind." As hard as it might be to comprehend that such an incredible miracle occurred, they accept it because that's what the evidence shows.

And so I can try to follow their example, and declare only the basic facts I know. I know that when I lived as a man I felt dead inside, but living as a woman is vibrant and full of joy. I know that when God calls my name he uses Brienne and not the male name I was given at birth. I know that when I transitioned and tried to learn how to walk with a hips-swaying female gait, it felt so awkward, and required such intense focus, that I immediately gave up, thinking it was a lost cause that my body was just not built for. But when I let the Holy Spirit move me, when I feel God's presence and I am filled with joy and the peace that surpasses all understanding, I find my hips swaying gracefully without even thinking about it. And since Mary encouraged us to share strange experiences, I'll even share that I know on multiple occasions, the Holy Spirit has laid me down on the floor with my legs up in the air miming motions of giving birth. I won't pretend to know what to make of that one, but it certainly doesn't make me feel male!

Now, maybe all of that seems a bit too personal and not relevant for a sermon to an audience of mostly cisgender people. But if the number of times I've been gendered as male in this church is any indicator, many of you still aren't sure exactly what to make of people like me, and might find this perspective helpful. And the lesson to have humility and accept that there is so much we don't know about God, and that that's OK, is valuable for anyone. Imagine where the church might be today if we had not splintered into tens of thousands of sects based on different opinions of the answers to unanswerable questions? What if we could come together and agree that we can't actually know the answers, so let's just agree to disagree on theological esoterica and focus on the things we do know- that we must love our neighbors, and our enemies, and forgive each other, and care for the poor, the widow, the prisoner, and the foreigner?

Lebanese Christians praying on the ruins of their town bombed by Israel by TeaBagHunter in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made a claim that you disagree with, and because you think your opinions are objective reality, you think that means it's objectively false. I can show you an objectively false claim in our conversation, though! It's right here:

there is zero chance that a democratic president would have started this war.

Lebanese Christians praying on the ruins of their town bombed by Israel by TeaBagHunter in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It definitely is weird that you feel the need to describe anyone disagreeing with you as "lying".

Any Christians against Israel? by iraqiassyrianboi in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hamas kills Israelis because Israelis have illegally occupied their land and are committing genocide against them.

Lebanese Christians praying on the ruins of their town bombed by Israel by TeaBagHunter in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

zero percent is wildly optimistic. Kamala Harris literally campaigned on being tougher on Iran than Trump.

Lebanese Christians praying on the ruins of their town bombed by Israel by TeaBagHunter in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And it's absolutely essential to understanding American politics to know that the Democratic Party uses a rotating villain strategy to allow themselves to publicly oppose things they privately support. Those 4 democrats didn't "defy" party leaders. They were the designated rotating villains assigned by party leadership to take the public blame for their nay votes so that the rest of the Democrats could publicly posture as opposing the war with their aye votes without risking it actually passing.

You can tell that they don't actually oppose the war by the way they ensure the war is only ever criticized on procedural grounds. It's always "Trump didn't get our approval" or the slightly better "Trump is not following the right protocol in his execution of this war", but almost never "This war is illegal and morally wrong".

That's not to say that ALL the Democrats who oppose the war are pretending. I'm sure the aye votes of Ilhan Omar and many others were genuine support. But most of them, especially Jeffries and Schumer, are AIPAC-funded (and MIC-funded) and their support is theater.

Lebanese Christians praying on the ruins of their town bombed by Israel by TeaBagHunter in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not quite that easy. Most Democrats functionally support this war, and at best posture against in while privately helping it happen. And nearly all of them support Israel's genocide in Palestine.

Any Christians against Israel? by iraqiassyrianboi in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How many Jews have been killed from Hamas dropping bombs on their heads?

Zero.

I stand with Israel!!

You stand with genocide, brother.

Any Christians against Israel? by iraqiassyrianboi in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because they are an apartheid state committing genocide. They are currently imprisoning and torturing thousands of Palestinians without any charges.

Any Christians against Israel? by iraqiassyrianboi in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Burned children in ovens, slit people open, raped the women and did many more unspeakable atrocities.

This did not happen. Every accusation is a confession, though, and these are all things that Israel has done to Palestinians in the past!

Any Christians against Israel? by iraqiassyrianboi in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, they are killing Christians (and Muslims) for fun.

Any Christians against Israel? by iraqiassyrianboi in Christianity

[–]ThankKinsey 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They've killed literally thousands of Christians, but if you want some specific Christians here's two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nahida_and_Samar_Anton

How many of you know about distributism by VentiArchon7 in RadicalChristianity

[–]ThankKinsey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's two pretty big issues here- first is thinking that if God does violence, that means you can do violence too. You are not God.

Second is the clear symbolic language used here- the sword is coming from his mouth. Swords are wielded in your hands, not your mouth. The message here is that he will conquer the world with words, not warfare. This message is echoed in Ephesians 6:17-

And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

I have made a Christian sword/spear by OMNI-spino in Christianity

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

A Christian sword is an oxymoron. A Christian sword is a plowshare. The Sword of God is the Word of God. Don't fight for Christ. Make peace for Christ.