Submitted by Stanny491 t3_100yhq4 in UpliftingNews
MisterStinkyBones t1_j2km3hz wrote
Hey good for them! Everyone deserves to be loved.
DragonGarlicBreath t1_j2koz0z wrote
I've known a decent number off people who have left orders for similar reasons. You'd think the highers-up would be more understanding; just like you can be called to an order, you can be called away. Some of them seem to be, but most seem apparently hostile. (It's fair to demand some reflection and time to make the choice, but accept the choice made.)
Ma3vis t1_j2l6qpl wrote
I think it's cause Nuns are often depicted as "brides of Christ" married to either Jesus or the church (which I think is a popularized myth). Apparently it’s a metaphor meant to better understand their commitments to Chasity, which works for some people, but it’s not something that is literal or universally embraced. So to give that up is like you're divorcing Christ himself probably to some folks out there.
I understand people taking a vow of celibacy but I also feel like to devote yourself entirely to it is in rejection of the biblical message of Adam and Eve, God's message to be fruitful and multiply, and so on. That said, even for asexual people of faith there's always the option to adopt and be stewards that way, so I see no outright harm in such. Just that certain institutions are unfortunately misleading their own clergy.
arkofjoy t1_j2mncjc wrote
Don't forget that the whole chastity came in to prevent senior priests from claiming church lands for children.
The whole "teachings of Jesus being used to amass power and wealth" has some problems that they certainly didn't learn from the Carpenters son.
Thedarknight1611 t1_j2nfdts wrote
It's also notable that only the catholic church really has that rule most other denominations your free to get married because they realize how backwards the rule is
arkofjoy t1_j2nn05u wrote
True, but most of those came after the church had all those lands.
Didn't Henry the 8 take a bunch of the Catholic churches lands in England and make it his own?
Thedarknight1611 t1_j2noq6m wrote
I believe so because he started the Anglican church and voided all catholic church lands. Giving them to the Anglican church instead
arkofjoy t1_j2nr0mw wrote
Ah, OK, then I mis- remembered. I thought he took all the Catholic church lands for the crown and did not give them to the Anglican Church.
billypilgrim87 t1_j2r4hft wrote
The Anglican Church was an instrument of the crown, so it's sort of the same thing really.
arkofjoy t1_j2rumtr wrote
That is true, but I thought part of the purpose of the break with the Catholic church was to remove the power of the church over the government. So if they were still large landholders, they would still have a lot of power.
But it seems that I remember my of my English history wrongly.
[deleted] t1_j2p0hc9 wrote
[removed]
MrHazard1 t1_j2lwupp wrote
Almost like the whole concept is flawed and full of contradictions. And people use whatever part they need to fit the point, they're trying to make
Douchebazooka t1_j2mt93m wrote
Oh, wow, someone hostile to religion on the Internet! What a rarely encountered treat!
MrHazard1 t1_j2mzofb wrote
>Oh, wow, someone hostile to religion on the Internet! reddit
Fify. I think these discussions wouldn't be as onesided if this was facebook.
lrpfftt t1_j2n6u3n wrote
Hostile or realistic?
Douchebazooka t1_j2n6zb5 wrote
You do realize this kind of take isn't clever or new, right? It just sounds like a teenager who just told their parents they're an atheist and thinks anyone else cares.
[deleted] t1_j2n7r51 wrote
It wasn’t even a hostile take lol
lrpfftt t1_j2n79v4 wrote
Sounds more to me like someone who never fell for religious nonsense in the first place.
It's good that this couple found one another and had a real life instead of the "cult" they belonged to before.
Douchebazooka t1_j2n7chu wrote
/r/4edgy5me
notnotaginger t1_j2ne78l wrote
They asked a question you dodged: hostile or realistic?
Douchebazooka t1_j2nea1w wrote
I didn't dodge it; it's a false dichotomy. It's not a dodge to refuse to engage with fallacious arguments.
notnotaginger t1_j2nkev3 wrote
Can you explain how it is hostile, then?
Douchebazooka t1_j2nkrgm wrote
Because the definitions of hostile include "antagonistic," "not friendly," and "showing a desire to thwart." It's literally right there for everyone to read, unless you're cherry-picking your definition of hostile to only include outright attacks rather than disposition.
notnotaginger t1_j2nmke1 wrote
And how did their comment fit that, is the question? Or is it just your interpretation?
Douchebazooka t1_j2nmvqs wrote
>Almost like the whole concept is flawed and full of contradictions. And people use whatever part they need to fit the point, they're trying to make
Perhaps you can tell me how the above is friendly to someone's religious beliefs instead, because if you can't find the hostility in that comment, I honestly have no idea how we're going to find reasonable common ground here
notnotaginger t1_j2nnbr9 wrote
Is pointing out flaws hostile? Yikes. If your boss points out an error in your work, is that hostile? Or is it important to analyze our own flaws?
Your definition is super snowflakey.
Douchebazooka t1_j2nnjfm wrote
You're either being intentionally dense or playing coy. I'm not sure which. Claiming something is a flaw while arguing a straw man is not genuinely pointing out flaws. It's the underlying supposition and approach that is hostile.
notnotaginger t1_j2no6am wrote
Where’s the flaw? Do you have an assertion that there is no contradictions? Because I went to Bible school and in my education even the professors pointed out contradictions and how they dealt with them
Douchebazooka t1_j2nobdb wrote
Ah, "Bible school." Have a nice day. You're not engaged in an honest discussion, and I'm not interested in wasting my time. :)
notnotaginger t1_j2nox26 wrote
Sounds like your hostile towards Bible school, by your own definition. Where I am it’s a four year university, and I came out with a BA.
For someone who wants others to follow logical rules of discourse, you’re dismissing mine based on your own prejudices.
If you truly care about logical discourse, you can ALWAYS explain your argument.
And obfuscating when I ask about contradictions says a lot.
You have much higher standards for other then yourself.
[deleted] t1_j2odp6x wrote
Oh look, a religious hypocrite. What a rare find!
Douchebazooka t1_j2omgk7 wrote
Oh look, accusations of hypocrisy from a nu-atheist with literally no supporting evidence! How novel and not at all a rhetorical device at this point!
[deleted] t1_j2otaj6 wrote
Agnostic but good try
[deleted] t1_j2nrz38 wrote
[removed]
lirannl t1_j2nnd59 wrote
From an outsider's perspective (atheist), it seems that vows are swears (and by that I mean "I swear to uphold xyz", not "fuck"), so you would never ever be allowed to break them, theologically speaking? Is that not the point of a vow (if not, what is the point of a vow?)
MisterStinkyBones t1_j2kr9zq wrote
To most of them it's God or nothing. They don't understand love it seems.
DragonGarlicBreath t1_j2krvh3 wrote
Which is odd, since that's what they'll tell you what the faith is all about.
But it's consistent with how a bunch of celibate men are dictating sexual morality...
sinr_88 t1_j2m8fw1 wrote
What is love
FleaDG t1_j2matjx wrote
Oh baby, don’t hurt me!
[deleted] t1_j2ktdzw wrote
[removed]
believethescience t1_j2ne36s wrote
Naw, it's because the organization will be losing the funds created by the individual, and has (in many cases) invested in the person (such as sending to higher Ed). Also means fewer people in a shrinking organization. Add that to the religious complex that women aren't supposed to want romantic or intimate partners and they often are not kind to those who wish to leave.
Joseluki t1_j2n3p5k wrote
Yeah most cults are angry when their slaves run away.
howeeee t1_j2knhhs wrote
Amen.
djsizematters t1_j2lgm6r wrote
R'amen.
Candide-Jr t1_j2m9ime wrote
Something something noodley appendages.
Stanny491 OP t1_j2kof1a wrote
Exactly! I'm so happy for them.
Zehaie t1_j2ly9u0 wrote
Not saying this to sound edgy but that's not true, infact nobody deserves love except children.
cottoncandyburrito t1_j2m07ec wrote
Please explain
swarmy1 t1_j2myoxl wrote
I think the issue is "deserve" implies a sense of entitlement. Similar to the entitlement that some men feel about relationships with women.
If someone is an asshole to everyone around them, then no one is obligated to love them.
Victor-Magnus t1_j2m1tdo wrote
I believe what he’s getting at is that if you’re obligated to love, that’s not real love, and that while adults can survive and be relatively healthy functioning humans without love, children when deprived of a loving environment develop serious sociological and psychological issues.
Love is not something you earn, you can’t make someone love you because you do more chores or say nice things. If you just earn love like a job by hard work or by anything else, then theoretically if you just worked harder, were just a little more attractive, did the dishes a little more, you could make anyone love you. Children, and more so babies, are unable to earn anything. Love isn’t something that you can earn like money, and the fact that you can’t expect it from someone or deserve it because of how many medals you’ve won for being the best at football makes it more valuable because someone else must give it willingly.
Mind you, acts of kindness can be vehicles of demonstrating love, kindness isn’t love itself. You can treat someone kindly and not be doing so out of love in the same way customer service can be polite and helpful but not really give a care about you.
Zehaie t1_j2m6b7l wrote
Human Adults don't deserve love, it's very much ideal and possibly may even give health benefits when feeling loved, love is given to you regardless of consent, what I'm basically getting at is love is earned but still isn't deserved even if fought for, died for, etc .Adults cannot die from lack of love or too much love but children may actually be highly influenced by the love they feel and will directly effect their growth mentally, yes in a perfect world every one deserves love, I agree with you.
Notbob1234 t1_j2n7glt wrote
Adults can die and be mentally scarred for lack of love. The countless stories of mental decline after losing a spouse late in life, suicide, depression, and of course degradation of lonely men into being incels. Love is an important factor no matter what age you are.
Everyone deserves some amount of love. Perhaps not romantic love, but compassion, empathy, friendship, understanding, these are all forms of love that can be given.
compaqdeskpro t1_j2n1vz1 wrote
Kanye West made the case that everyone deserved love, and he was swifty shot down.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments