Anonymous #1 7w

religious and progressive are mutually exclusive.

12

Anonymous OP 7w

They’re not and I’m proof!

-3

Anonymous #1 7w

do you also think someone can eat meat and be vegan? just wondering

7

Anonymous #2 7w

That’s not at all the same, you can be ignorant but don’t bring others down with you

5

Anonymous #2 7w

And ofc you think you can tell me how I pray and how I vote

3

Anonymous #1 7w

religion is a tool used to oppress women and minorities. you can’t be progressive and believe in that

0

Anonymous #2 7w

you can if you don’t believe in organized religion. especially when it come to christianity/the bible, the new testament is actually pretty progressive a lot of times! rarely do i abide by the old testament tho.

15

Anonymous #4 7w

what’s progressive about telling women to stay silent in church?

0

Anonymous #2 7w

that’s the not following organized religion part. i consider myself a christian but purely when it comes to my relationship with god/jesus. you dont have to go to church. did you even read what i said?

7

Anonymous #2 7w

do you understand the historical context of that verse? do you really think Apostle « there is neither male nor female » Paul was telling women to stop being uppity?

9

Anonymous #3 7w

i actually don’t. could you explain it to me? i just really struggle to see how something that clearly stated is somehow progressive. even if he also said gender doesn’t exist or w/e why call out women specifically? why not just tell everyone to stay silent silent?

1

Anonymous #4 7w

yeah i did, that’s why i asked about something from the new testament. from your comment it seemed like you follow it

1

Anonymous #2 7w

many places of worship were still segregated by gender, so wives would often shout across the divider to ask their husbands questions. the « i would not permit a woman to teach » verse was also for a specific church in an incredibly regressive area and was written purely so Christians would be taken seriously. its like using a lesbian with dyed hair and piercings (such as myself) to preach to a group of magatd

8

Anonymous #3 7w

magats*

2

Anonymous #3 7w

but even this still shows the inherent misogyny in the church. why was it segregated? why didn’t they tell the men to go over to their wives? why was the solution to tell women to not speak entirely instead of like. idk. telling them to keep domestic matters until after church?

-1

Anonymous #2 7w

everyone’s perspective is different. while many churches spread awful beliefs and operate on shame and oppression, many individuals and churches base their faith in love and positivity. i’m not really religious but ik people who simply use their faith to guide and encourage them without putting down others for their beliefs or lifestyle

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Christianity was emerging from Judaism, and existed in that context. synagogues were converted into churches without making any structural adjustments, and Paul did not have the power to simply eliminate misogyny (why didn’t God just do it? because it would violate our free will)

2

Anonymous #5 7w

the convo isn’t about individual churches though, it’s about religion as a whole. it’s totally possibly for spirituality to guide someone to building community/making positive change, and in a perfect world organized religion would be the perfect way to do that. but we don’t live in a perfect world and the harm done to women and other marginalized groups far outweighs any benefit

1

Anonymous #3 7w

so a misogynistic religion was emerging out of another misogynistic religion? yeah they tend to do that

-1

Anonymous #2 7w

OP explicitly said that religion and progressive are mutually exclusive. i fully agree and understand how much harm religion as a whole has inflicted upon women. i was simply making the distinction because it was implied that there was not one. maybe i replied to the wrong person

3

Anonymous #2 7w

the religion isnt misogynistic, it existed in the context of misogyny. theres a difference

6

Anonymous #3 7w

right and the misogynistic teachings are still being used to oppress women. which is the point of this post

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

anti-religion is not progressive or woke. especially since there’s thousands of religions, many of which are extremely important to minority cultures. y’all either think Abrahamic religions are the only ones that matter (aka you’re buying into Christian nationalist rhetoric) or you don’t respect other people’s cultures.

7

Anonymous #6 7w

if a culture or religion is misogynistic, i don’t respect it

1

Anonymous #2 7w

that’s not Christianity’s fault though. Christianity is a post-hoc justification for prejudices that exist independently of it. Christianity was objectively a historically progressive force

11

Anonymous #2 7w

cool! glad people are becoming more combative towards Christian nationalism & the ideology Abrahamic religions often push (including patriarchal values), but yall can do that without antagonizing other cultures. if you mean Abrahamic religions, say that. religion has never been anti-progressive as a whole.

1

Anonymous #6 7w

honestly i agree that there are definitely cultures and religions that aren’t oppressive. but as a whole? in general? religion does far more harm than good

1

Anonymous #6 7w

there’s also thousands of denominations of Christianity (and many sects & differing beliefs among both Judaism and Islam), so you can’t even say Abrahamic religions as a whole are anti-progressive. religion can be used to push misogynistic values, but faith is inherently diverse. boiling down religion to “that’s just pushing misogyny” is such a glaring overgeneralization.

4

Anonymous #2 7w

that’s another overt generalization, and I adamantly disagree. religion is a big reason why we have so many historical examples of gender diversity. the modern two-spirit identities of native cultures stem from it. at its core, religion is a set of beliefs that imparts certain values. people using it poorly doesn’t ruin it as a whole.

1