• cardboardboxfort@lemmy.world
      3 days

      I’m just saying, we let the church burn witches to test that theory out and they found out it was wrong and apologized. Why not let this pastor try out her theological theories and then evaluate the results before we rush into a hasty decision.

  • Yaenntz@fedia.io
    3 days

    Just to be sure everyone gets it, this is a hoax. And it isn’t that funny anymore once you’ve read that the meme is based on a real fact, but it was gender swapped. Classic case of men in power being shitty people™️

    • dzsimbo@sopuli.xyz
      2 days

      Thanks for the sauce. Weird-ass world we live in that websites are censoring the word sex while discussing sexual assault.

    • BreadOven@lemmy.world
      3 days

      Gender-swapped is not the correct term for this. The actual story was sexual assault(s) performed by a male individual. No mention of sexual assaults in the meme.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      3 days

      Why isn’t it that funny when it’s gender swapped? Are the standards somehow double?

      • wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        3 days

        It wassend funny to begin with at best its weird at worsetets its full on sexual assault which it was :/ a guy sexualy assaulting joung boys suing his position of power and there fait to abusr them

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      3 days

      So it’s funny when a female pastor blows the men in her church, but it’s not funny when a male pastor does it?

      Sounds kinda homophobic, honestly…

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        2 days

        I think the poster described it poorly.

        The way the “funny” version describes it is a woman pastor giving bjs to parishioners - who are assumed in the joke to be willing participants - and later claiming it was part of a religous rite when people found out.

        The real 2019 New Jersey case was about a preacher actually telling impressionable men they had demons in them and tricking them into letting him give them blowjobs.

        The joke is problematic, but the real case is clearly sexual assault.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          2 days

          So the problem is that in the real story, it was coerced? Not that the pastor was a dude?

          Kinda not what the commenter above said at all. Kinda like saying “Nah the sexual assault was okay, the real problem here was the gayness!”

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            2 days

            I was trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, and saying they poorly explained why the real situation was worse than the joke. They described it as being about the gender swap, but left out the details regarding how the real event was sexual assault.

            They said it was based on a real fact, but was gender swapped, and that could be read as saying that the problem was the gender swap and not the event itself. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and reading it as them saying it was based on a real event which was horrible, and the bit about the gender swap being a clarifying detail that was added poorly.

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              2 days

              They said it was based on a real fact, but was gender swapped, and that could be read as saying that the problem was the gender swap and not the event itself.

              That’s exactly how it reads, and I’m not the only one in this thread who seems to think that. The commenter made it about the problem being “it was actually a man who did this,” not about the actual problem that “it was coerced and an abuse of a position of power/influence.”

              Almost like it reads “Men are evil, so when they do things, it’s evil. But if a woman does the same thing, well, you go girl, slay!”

    • beejboytyson@lemmy.world
      3 days

      Guys this wasn’t sexual assualt, those guys that let that man suck thier dicks had to be at least 25 percent homo.

  • YragNitram1956@feddit.uk
    2 days

    All of them. As a scientist, I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book.

    Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don’t see a problem with that and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don’t just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms - because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties.

    Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren’t, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.

    These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin’ moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna. It’s not just fact-free, it’s all nonsense.

    • homosapien@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      24 hours

      There is a lot of evidence other than “it says so in a big book”, when we point to Bible verses to say Christ is God, we are typically trying to refute Arianism, a heresy which claims that Christ is not God but Arianists still try to believe in the Bible, so that’s how we refute Arianism.

      To prove God’s existence, we can typically just point out the principle of sufficient reason or the miracles, etc

      • YragNitram1956@feddit.uk
        8 hours

        Given the time gap between the events recorded in the gospels and the and the estimated time they were written, the fallibility of human memory, and the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the Gospels are not historically reliable with regard to the resurrection of Jesus. The gospels were written decades after the events they describe. They are reliant on the memory of unknown persons, oral traditions, and possibly other written sources that are no longer available. What’s wrong with memory? Human memory is fallible, particularly over long periods of time. It’s feasible that the authors unintentionally introduced errors while describing the resurrection event. What’s the problem with oral tradition? It was a means of transmitting information in societies that were largely illiterate. Unfortunately, as stories are passed down, the retelling of the story can include slightly different details due to memory distortion and reconstruction, and the differences can become amplified as the story is retold many times. We have watched this happen in a manner of minutes of a story being told. If you’ve ever heard of the telephone game this is a great example of this phenomenon happening. Perhaps the gospels were based on prior sources. If they are, we know nothing about these prior sources. We also have the problem of eye-witness testimony. We perceive events through the lens of our beliefs and biases. Confirmation bias can cause someone to remember details that they perceive as affirming their beliefs while disregarding information that contradict their beliefs. This can influence how we interpret and make sense of it when we’re giving an account of it at a later time. This issue can be further compounded when witnesses to an event discuss what they saw. This can lead to a sense of conformity where people alter their memories of an event to align with what is widely agreed upon. Along with an absence of external corroboration that a resurrection occurred, I find the gospels to be unreliable with regard to the resurrection.

  • felsiq@piefed.zipEnglish
    4 days

    I’m not a fan of sexual relationships started under an imbalanced power dynamic, but given they’re old enough to be called “men”, this is progress for the church and I’m not going to shit on it

      • BreadOven@lemmy.world
        3 days

        Well the fact that the actual story was sexual assault, which is not implied in the meme, yes. If it was consensual and an older man doing it, what’s the problem?

      • ☭SaltyIcetea☭ @lemmy.ml
        3 days

        hey, as long as everyone is of age and consents, idc how many cocks were sucked

        edit: after re-reading it appears i may have missed a few details in my hurried reading that lead to the conclusion that the consent was questionable. sorry about that.

      • melfie@lemmy.zip
        3 days

        Easy mistake to make in a dark confession booth, I’m guessing.

      • felsiq@piefed.zipEnglish
        3 days

        Assuming that’s the only thing that changed, nope I feel the same way about it. Still problematic, but still less problematic than a lotta the other shit churches get up to lol.

      • Im_old@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3 days

        you have to pretend you’re walking on a tightrope across a canyon: the trick is to not look down

    • Pope-King Joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4 days

      Yeah when it comes to the church and sex scandals, I’ll take any “wins” we can get.

  • niva@discuss.tchncs.de
    3 days

    “I have a devil in my dick and some demons in my seman …”

    Sir Psycho Sexy by Red Hot Chilly Peppers

    Maybe she is a fan?

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    2 days

    In case you didn’t know, this is fake.

    You don’t even have to look it up to tell, just use some basic common sense.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2 days

      In case you didn’t know, this is fake.

      Doesn’t matter. The funny parts are how ludicrous it is, and the (probably intentional) transparent thirstiness of Armando’s reply.

      Neither rely on it being a real thing that actually happened.

      You don’t even have to look it up to tell, just use some basic common sense.

      Right back at you 🤷🏻

  • molten@lemmy.world
    3 days

    Ooh so close! What you’re actually sucking out isn’t demons but semens.

    D for effort though!