Guix > Nix, because I'm more angry about not being able to run the former than the latter.
Well let's move on from the abstract concept and blame the people uphldng the system.
Sadly no. Those other instances get their data from beehaw and since its defederated from lemmy.world the comments made from l.w never made it there
I'm a fool. I thought it was a prompt and didn't see it was link 😅
Ah fuck thats the first one. Let me try his next one:
You can't prove your maths doesn't have a fact which is both true and false.
You need lots of claims to get good maths.
Yes my lovely child?
Twitter’s press email auto-replied to a request for comment with a poop emoji.
Classy.
Fair enough it's your community to moderate. What I just saw and which I find seriously concerning is rule #8. Why is Pro-LGBTQ content expressly forbidden?? Do you intend to discriminate against LGBTQ Christians?
Can we not let the vote system decide this?
The Christian communities on Reddit had become rather circle-jerky.
It was all "hey guys I love Christians and am very interested in becoming one and will reply 'wow that's interesting' to every reply of this post 🥰 so my question is when did Jesus live?"
As long as it's not a raid I think it would actually add value. A declared debate community however usually becomes a side for people to throw arguments at eachother with everyone already having decided what the outcome of the debate will be for them.
As long as they can be viewed as in made in good-faith I think differing opinions will make this community a lot more interesting. It adds spice.
Edit: or what about news that will put Christians in a very negative light? Like for example exposés about churches preaching "prosperity gospel"?
I have accrued some knowledge over the years about Christianity independent of any church. I think a lot of people would be surprised by how earnestly and scientifically the historical context and creation of documents are studied by theologians at reputable universities. Not that I have but I do look at the texts produced there as part of my study of my faith.
As for the Bible being "divinely inspired" this is not necessarily something every Christian will concede. The Bible itself doesn't have such a claim it and I'd think at least such a self-referential claim would have bolstered it's position as "the literal word of God". As for the gospels not agreeing on certain aspects of Jesus' life, this is not news to someone who reads the Bible "religiously". Comparing texts that reference each other is how most people work with it. But the claim that the gospels don't agree on the character of Jesus is new to me.
The way the Bible is understood however is fundamental in how you then view what God teaches. And if the "commandment" to kill whole tribes is viewed as a literal divine command. Again the passages about the wars Israel took part in is not going to be news to most Christians and the fact that you think these would not have been studied in the context of a supposedly just and loving God suggests that you have a very shallow understanding of Christianity.
I hope I don't come across as mean, but these arguments have been made for millennia and a cursory glance at academic literature will reveal a treasure trove of information about how the topic of violence in the Bible is viewed within the context of Christianity.
I'd urge you to at least read the wiki articles that deal with these topics like for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence#Theological_reflections_and_responses
I am not aware of any rhetoric which mandates hate. Or the gospels not agreeing on the character of Christ.
Just because someone claims to be something doesn't mean they are. The Nazis weren't socialist despite their name. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is not a republic. TERFs aren't actually feminists. Flushable wipes shouldn't be flushed.
Consequently you'd have to credit the actions of the Iranian government to Islam. You will get a very angry tirade from any Sunni Muslim. Or any moderate Shiite. Rightfully so in my opinion.
I do not agree that it is reasonable to credit the actions of a few to the whole of any movement religious or otherwise no matter how prominent these few are. In fact I'd argue you'd find the true nature of a movement by not looking at those loudest but those actually living it in their daily lives.
Love is a necessary requirement of a Christian. I don't see how Jesus saying
37 Jesus replied, ‘ “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your mind.” 38 This is the first and most important commandment. 39 And the second is like it. “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.”
Matthew 22
Any other way. You can be a loving person without being Christian. But you can't be a Christian without being a loving person. At least not in the way Jesus teaches. Who is by the way just reiterating a common interpretation of Leviticus 19.
Edit I say common, but this was actually a very popular debate topic around Jesus' time. Does the concept of loving your brother extend to heathens (e. g. Samaritans)? Does God want us to love our enemies? The above verse and the parable of the good Samaritan make it clear what side of the debate Jesus landed on. But it took some time until it became a largely accepted interpretation in ancient Judaism as well.
The actions of a government are not representative for the religion associated with it. There are loving Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc. but there are fascist governments associated with each of these religions.
The issue is not in the faith but in the government. Namely the government trying to force others to follow their interpretation of a religion. Or indeed any interpretation. As soon as that appears empathy will have already flown out the window no matter what the religion teaches in any interpretation of it.
Stay here, might be that I land on Reddit when googling stuff but I'll look for news, memes etc. here.