https://lemmy.world/c/christians
This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles
Rule 8 of this community is in clear breach of the first goal from the lemmy/mastodon.world code of conduct
You must log in or register to comment.
Calm down people. It is deleted.
Edit: they can repeal this decision. If they remove that line from their rules and live by it we are up to having normal conversations even if we don’t agree with the viewpoints.
But our stance on LGBQT is clearly laid out in the instance rules. We want to provide an inclusive platform. There are enough LGBTQ people who are christians.
EDIT: The community’s moderator/owner hasn’t been online in over a month. If anyone wants to take over this community and make it follow the Lemmy World rules then contact me.
Sometimes I think you guys are really managing dumpsters on fire
Such is internet janitor duty. Doesn’t help they’re both janitors, tech support, and management, I imagine it’s quite the handful.
Writing this from my car before going into an appointment with customers 😅
🫡
To play devil’s advocate (pun not intended), this community poses an interesting quandary.
When seen in context, their rules do clearly prohibit any hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community:
Rule #5: Remember that we are all fellow image-bearers. We may disagree with people, but we are never to tear down another person’s inherent dignity and value as someone made in the image of God (Imago Dei). This includes those in the LGBTQ+ community. They need Jesus, too, just like we do, and we can’t say we represent Him while we tear down the works of His hands.
Rule #6: Banned subjects include … Anything calling for direct/indirect violence against any individual or group, including LGBTQ+ individuals or groups; …
Rule #8: This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles, with the exception of the ace/aroace (asexual/aromatic-asexual) lifestyle in certain contexts. However, abuse towards members of the LGBTQ+ community will not be tolerated. Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed; however, sincere questions and discourse about LGTBQ+issues are permitted.
I’d be interested to see the admin’s ruling in this case.
That’s the ol’ “hate the sin love the sinner” shtick. It tries to separate homosexuality (the “sin”) from homosexuals (the “sinner”). If only they could stop sinning (stop being gay) they would of course be welcome!
Its not just excluding them from church/christian communities, its the theological basis for conversion camps and the like.
Mmm aromatic asexual
I would think specifically not allowing “pro-LGBTQ+ content” is being pretty bigoted. Just because it is a religious belief does not mean it can’t also be bigoted.
If this little “loophole” is enough to allow this kind of thing to stay on this instance, I would be worried. But I’ll wait and see what the admins have to say about it.Resolved: https://lemmy.world/comment/1455537I think that would depend on what “Pro-LGBTQ+ content” means. It’s quite a vague term. Does it refer to posts, discussion topics, or what?
They do follow up by saying that serious discussion about LGBTQ+ issues is acceptable, so the fact that are open to discussion, in theory, could be a point in their defense.
Community’s gone now, so it’s a moot point, but:
Assume they allow casual images. Someone posts an image of a pride celebration out front of a church. It’s removed. Is this not obviously bigoted?
Are you giving an example of a real situation or are you just imagining? There is a big difference.
We cannot ban them because you think they would remove a post like that
Why assume anything? To strawman?
No, to brainstorm a point, seeing as the community has now been banned and thus I have no idea what specific content they allowed outside the rule snippets posted here. Problem’s resolved, we’re done.
Thanks for posting their rules. Very helpful and informative
I’m just here to find out what flavour an aromatic-asexual is
Garlic bread, I think
I was going to say something pretty similar to what you were.
I’m the last one to generally defend religious people, but are they actually being bigoted?
There’s a pretty large difference between not affirming something and attacking something and frankly flipping through the community I didn’t see either of those things occurring.
It sounds like the original poster just doesn’t like the rule itself.
What if it was race? What if they said “this community doesn’t affirm black lifestyles.”
It is not like we live in society where everyone is always welcome.
“What if it was Russians?” (aha we forbade them long time ago), Chinese (them too), native Americans (we killed them off), what is they are from some poor country… Some of those russians and Chinese are lgbt+, what about them? Migrants? no way.
There are always limits if you don’t see them you should work on your sensibility (or probably information source)
They have some rules, it is on us all (not only admins) to assess if those rules align with this server or they should make their own instance (or go to known conservative instance).
I don’t even want to look at their community (i am ignorant of all religions) if they just don’t want some content it is ok with me, if they are hateful and share hate content and contet against lgbt people then delete them.
Discrimination against Russians, Chinese, or Native Americans based on their demographic is also unacceptable. That it once was doesn’t make it ok now.
I think against Republicans is fine right?
I mean, we could play the game “what if they set a thing they didn’t say” all day long.
What if they said shoes go on your hands?
Would it be unacceptable if it described another demographic, is what they’re asking.
100% this… race and sexuality are both pretty similar: things that people just are and can’t change about themselves
to say they’re not the same is… well, it’s not wrong, however they’re comparable in this context. if you say it’s not the same thing, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you made the exact point we were trying to: the only reason 1 is acceptable and the other is not doesn’t stand on logical foundations
Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed
That sounds pretty intolerant to me. How else do you define a bigot?
I’d say that sounds more like a circlejerk than intolerance but that sounds pretty gay so is probably not allowed there either.
Those things often go hand in hand
An intolerant circlejerk.
A jackass.
Whelp! I am off to post a Christians for LGBTQ+ meme over there…
Putting gay content on a Christian community is like putting a Pitbull in a nursery. It’s done only to cause a problem.
Would you put gay content in a Muslim community?
What are you on about? There are many Christians who have no problem with LGBTQ+, and there are lots of relevant issues about it to discuss, especially in a Christian community.
If it was on topic, yeah sure. It’s on them for having a problem with someone’s identity.
If it was on-topic it was allowed as the other rules clearly stated.
Then why specify at all? Assumedly anything off-topic would be removed.
Well, probably not anymore, since not allowing lgbt discussion is enough to get your community banned without warning. Its always on topic.
I think we can tag in the Paradox of Tolerance with a side of Nazi Bar on this one.
This type of “they’re intolerant, but polite” shit needs to get nipped in the bud because it metastasizes quickly, and sends out a batsignal to other intolerant groups that this will make a fine home base so long as they hide their power levels.
This type of “they’re intolerant, but polite” shit needs to get nipped in the bud because it metastasizes quickly
Not only that, if there’s a rule about politeness but intolerant people are welcome, the politeness rule becomes a “don’t sass the nazis” rule.
Intolerant but polite is a great description of sea lioning.
Hating on LGBTQ like Jesus would have wanted 🙏🫶
Cool. But why don’t we do it proactively? Like let’s go find these people that think the Bad Things. We can even wear matching shirts - I’ll go order them. Come on guys. We cannot rest while there are Bad Thoughts out there being thought by Bad People.
Oh look. It’s the “RVO” portion of DARVO.
Being LGBT is not a lifestyle… omg
deleted by creator
Can you expand on that please? It’s a pretty open and shut case.
The current guidelines are in clear contravention of the guidelines of your instance.
Locking the thread with no detail is not an appropriate response to this.
deleted by creator
Thanks for the update!
deleted by creator
This is a lemmy support community and the discussions should be kept to that
The sidebar of lemmy.world points to this community as the one to raise issues relating to lemmy.world
I think what they mean is the mods of this community aren’t expecting to have to moderate ideological discussions over bigotry, just to handle support requests. Which, well, I contributed to those discussions myself, but I get it.
Can I have breakfast too or nah lol
Thank you for the quick response to this, y’all haven’t let me down with a decision yet
I didn’t want to remove it out of a kneejerk reaction. They had this in their sidebar:
-
Rule #6: Banned subjects include pro-Nazi and/or pro-racist sentiments; support for conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon, International Jewish Conspiracy, Holocaust denialism, etc.; “is X the mark of the Beast?” drivel; anything calling for direct/indirect violence against any individual or group, including LGBTQ+ individuals or groups; pornography of any kind; gore; spam; asking for money; pro-Mormon and/or pro-Jehovah’s Witness posts.
-
And then there was rule 8 🙄
deleted by creator
I think our views on LGBQT are clearly laid out on https://mastodon.world/about
There is a difference between hosting those communities here and federating with instances who have them.
Unless it turns out to be problematic we won’t defederate.
deleted by creator
Lol, let me shoot an arrow to my own knee real quick
I think you made a rushed decision, you are creating a dangerous precedent and you will be bombarded by people being outraged by minor things requesting you to ban communities for no good reason. In this case, if there was a violation it could be resolved with discussion instead of an outright ban.
Read my edit. They can send an appeal to info@mastodon.world
The community was not even active, so there is no one maybe to send an appeal. If you look at the upvote, and downvote ratio of this post, you can see that there is no unanimous opinion on this case, and the decision should be taken more carefully on this one. If you don’t want to push your other users out of the instance.
-
Thank you for your work
Merci a toi 😊
That in itself is overstepping what Christianity is about. At the core, you only need to believe a few things:
-
Jesus is God
-
God is Triune
-
Baptism unites us as Christians
Everything else varies from one denomination to another. Also, if you’re going to put any restriction on c/christians are you also going to going to apply this equally to other communities of similar faiths like c/jews c/muslims? The belief systems are very connected to the Old Testament teachings, where most of the discussion on this topic stems from in theological terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people
At the heart of Christian teaching is love. Following a personal conviction of self-applied beliefs because you think God’s vocations are more important than your brain chemistry is just that: Personal. It should never spill over to anyone unwilling to follow such a path, especially in a way that is hateful. I think as long as participants understand that line in the sand is a line in stone and it is carefully moderated, then it should be fine. There’s literally millions of other topics that could be discussed.
-
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !christians@lemmy.world
Go away bot, I know what I’m doing. I have zero desire to make it easier for people to access the community
Well that’s just being paternalistic. And arbitrary; you DID provide a link, you’re not hiding anything, you’re just being kind of weird about it.
Plus she’s telling probably the best and most helpful helper bot on all of Lemmy so far to go away, which is the opposite of what those of us that don’t want Lemmy links to open in a new browser tab want 🤦
paternalistic
That would be a neat trick
Did you read the whole rule list? It seems that you intentionally cropped that part out of context.
Its not nice to target communities by making this kind of posts and invite brigadeering on them just because you disagree with them.
I agree with you and it’s sad to see you’re being downvoted for stating something that should be obvious.
I don’t like religions in general because I find them incoherent on many aspects, but that’s not a good reason to attack them, they’re not breaking rules, just ignore them.
Well, I am disappointed that the mods took the decision so easily. This community should maybe revise slightly the rules, but there was no clear violation, it could be resolved with discussion.
And there I was expecting Lemmy to enable bigger freedom of opinion than reddit, I guess I was wrong. Seriously considering to stop using both networks.
I too believe it could have been resolved with discussion, I’m confused by such a sudden reaction, I just hope there may be things we don’t know about it, otherwise it doesn’t make sense to me.
I mean, we intend to allow Meta shit here because it’s not “open minded” to block them preemptively, then we’re being close minded about this.
Could you elaborate what exactly it is that makes that particular rule acceptable in context?
Because not every topic is relevant to every community?
@RemindMe@programming.dev 6 hours
Oh this is cool. Let me try.
@RemindMe@programming.dev 2 hours
Gotcha! I’ll remind you at Wednesday, July 19, 2023, 8:42:09 AM UTC.
Hey, here is your reminder!
Gotcha! I’ll remind you at Wednesday, July 19, 2023, 12:04:09 PM UTC.
Yes, “christians”.
Can’t believe I’m going to bat for the Christians but here I go: Maybe it’s OK that not everyone thinks the same about every single issue and that we have some diversity of thought on the fucking internet.
Their rules also make it very clear that they’re not going full Westborough. But even if they were, the Internet is not just for people who agree with me. This trend of orthodoxy is quite disheartening.
We don’t need to pull the marketplace of ideas thing when the “ideas” being defended are things like “I don’t think LGBTQ+ people should exist / are sinners”.
aka the paradox of tolerance which isn’t a paradox but a treaty but people know the name “paradox of tolerance”. we’re in pretty good philosophical company on this one: slippery slope and “but free speech” arguments have clear counters
That’s exactly when we need it. It’s OK that other people think differently on the Internet.
Frankly? When the thing they think is bigotry, no it is not ok. This isn’t a casual difference of opinion, it’s discrimination - thinking that an immutable part of someone’s identity is a fundamental sin.
We do not need to adhere to free speech absolutism, and we do not need to equally entertain all ideas and opinions. We are human beings, not abstract concepts that adhere to ideological purity - we can make exceptions.
So disagree then. Even though I think your suggestions are as dangerous as the bigotry, it’s a part of the diversity of thought I’d like to see in an online forum. There are 2.6 billion christians in the world and 1.7 billion muslims. And according to you they should all be deplatformed. That’s more than half the worlds population instantly dismissed by you as bigots because they believe in the book of fairy tales they were taught to believe in. I disagree pretty strongly with their views, but they have a right to exist on the internet. Unless they’re actively organising a pogrom or a crusade, you’re not helping anyone by deplatforming them. And even then, they’ll just find another place to organise it - personally I’d like to keep it visible. Both as an early warning system, and as a chance to have the sunlight do the disinfecting.
I don’t think all of those people hate LGBT.
And, honestly, to think that deplatforming bigotry is just as dangerous as bigotry is absurd to the point where I don’t think any reasonable discussion could be had here anymore.
Running around deplatforming people who think Bad Things but haven’t hurt anyone is seriously anti-enlightenment, and I think it’s equally absurd you can’t see the danger in it. But I am still glad that we have a place that we can have this conversation.
people who think Bad Things but haven’t hurt anyone
“People who think bad things but haven’t hurt me personally, ergo they haven’t hurt anyone”
Why don’t you go ask trans people in Florida whether Christian bigotry has hurt them or not
Or were you just talking about physically hurting people? Because it would be naive to think that’s the only way you can make someone suffer. It’s also not true, Christian extremists have attacked and even killed trans people and continue to do so.
What about the phrase “sunlight is the best disinfectant”?. You can allow people to air their opinions (regardless of whether you believe they’re bigoted or not) and it’ll hurt their cause. Alex Jones is nothing but a meme now because of having a platform.
Doesn’t banning these people prove their ideas and conspiracies right and force them deeper underground?
If they aren’t promoting literal violence, leave them be. Just because they upset some people isn’t a reason to ban them.
The Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example of airing their foul opinions causing almost a complete exodus and switch on behalf of the church members. If you think you’re right, try to convince them.
When the “opinions” being aired discriminate against other people or could lead to an avoidable death from dangerous misinformation, it should not be allowed.
Deplatforming works. Yes, banned people will leave and try to congregate somewhere else - but it is better that they are removed, so that the impressionable and the vulnerable are not hurt by their bigotry or misinformation. Besides, how many people have you honestly seen have a core belief successfully challenged and changed on the internet?
I was one of those people, I’ve been changed. I know a lot of other people too. Maybe try to look outside of an echo chamber sometime.
Same here, and the orthodoxy enforcement brigade here reminds me a whole lot of the conservative religious folk I grew up around. Bizarre.
If you want to talk to them, go somewhere they congregate and talk to them. It’s not like such places are rare on the internet. Not everywhere needs to be a platform for hate.
You do realise that every single social platform favours your way of thinking? You are pretending like you aren’t fully in charge.
All you need to do is shout “my feelings!” and you get results. Like toddlers shouting for cookies.
You do realise that every single social platform favours your way of thinking?
Really? 4chan does? How about exploding-heads? reddit? What unmitigated horseshit.
All you need to do is shout “my feelings!” and you get results.
You’re whining that bigots aren’t welcome here. Your poor feelings. There’s already too many places that are as stormfront-y as you’d prefer. Not everywhere has to be.
Alex Jones and everyone else hurt so many people in such awful ways because he was allowed to.
Then there’s reddit and facebook and youtube comments and 4chan and twitter and bluesky and threads and so on. Not everywhere has to be welcoming to bigots just because you like them more than the minorities they hate.
Now you’re getting it! People can think differently about stuff and that’s OK.
They already have places where bigotry is as welcome as you’d prefer. They can go there.
So they can go a little Westborough, as a treat.
hah. Well yeah. A little Westborough is basically just mainstream Christian isn’t it?
No one forced you to defend bigotry. That’s something you chose to do.
Lemmy really has a bullshit attitude towards opinions.
Intolerance of other people’s identity is not “opinions”
Same as saying the KKK has these “opinions” about black people
Can’t believe y’all STILL haven’t bothered to look up Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.
There is no such thing as “the one Lemmy”. You don’t like the state of things? Go found your own instance with black jack and hookers
Or tabernacles and funny hats … whichever is more appropriate
That said the bible seems to suggest Jesus was pretty tight with hookers and his only recorded gripe with gamblig was when it was sin a synagogue, so why not both?
I’m pretty sure they smoked the funny stuff back then as well.
If you want “opinions” go check out 8Chan.
If you want something halfway decent, stay here.
Why not tell the mods to correct the rules if you don’t like them, instead of just deleting the whole thing?
Why not just block the community and move on? Plenty of steps you can take it you don’t like the content you’re seeing
