How do you measure justice?

Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.

If you’re vying for leadership, you are definitely there voluntarily.

Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.

That’s a separate issue - here it seems people want to impose secular values on the way the Southern Baptists do things. You can’t have it one way (In most cases, I do condemn the imposition of Christianity on the general secular public)

And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.

I agree to a point. I think it is okay for Christians to be involved in politics, and a lot of those Christians would have their opinions and views originate from their philosophy which is rooted in Christianity. So these will be ideals that life is sacred, that the marginalised and oppressed should be uplifted, that people should be forgiven, etc. However, I wouldn’t see why things like adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, fornication or idolatry between consenting adults should be prohibited. If people want to be free to destroy themselves and make bad decisions, they have the right to do so as long as it isn’t harming others

Divorce is equally prohibited.

1 Corinthians 7:10-14

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Paul goes out of his way to name both sexes.

Well, just say you did fall out of love or have an argument. For the sake of your children, you should remain together

That’s why you marry someone you love and enjoy being around. You commit yourself to them.

I’m not talking about indigenous religions here, I’m talking about Christianity. It forbids divorce equally whether it be a man or a woman who wishes to separate

Obey their husbands, yes. Doesn’t have much to do with secular job roles

There isn’t correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn’t have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn’t contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.

Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.

I am not a part of your religion. So why should it affect me? The ecclesial structure of churches doesn’t affect you. If you want to form a religion where consenting converts are obliged to beat each other up and be beaten up and steal each others cars, why should I object

That’s what I said, before COVID. After that they decided not to bother anymore.

Although this is mainly western society pre-constantine. In places like Asia and the Arab world there was no advantage in pretending, quite the opposite. So it’s more pure there.

Extremely weird behaviour. Although that was the case until around before covid (in some places it’s still ongoing but it rapidly declines, churches led by atheists also rapidly die out)

There isn’t correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn’t have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn’t contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.

Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.

This isn’t an American issue, it’s a Christian issue. Christian church structure doesn’t answer to secular morality.

Banning churches is religious bigotry.

Morality isn’t subjective. Morality has an objective foundation. For a Christian, that objective foundation for morality is found within The Bible correctly interpreted and read within context. The Bible forbids women from holding authority over men in ecclesial matters. Therefore it cannot be morally wrong.

Generally, if you’re willing to throw the parts of the bible about not ordaining women out, then you’re generally more willing to throw the whole thing out

Are you advocating that atheists pretend to believe…?

The same rules for marriage applies to men

What’s the point of marriage at all if separating would be easy anyway? Unless you implement some form of legal equality for cohabiting persons

mask off. Bigots out here showing their true colours.

know are morally wrong

How do you know something is morally wrong?

Why are non southern baptist people getting pissed over what happens in the southern baptist convention? It literally doesn’t affect you 😐

Farage would suck off donald for a bag quavers