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

  • Antik 👾M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

      • TheSpookiestUser
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2410 months ago

        Such is internet janitor duty. Doesn’t help they’re both janitors, tech support, and management, I imagine it’s quite the handful.

    • AngrilyEatingMuffins
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Just autoban right wingers. Their ideology is inundated by fascism and bereft of any social value and everyone with a brain knows this already. So why would we want to chat up homophobes and racists?

      Do we really need to wait for each one of their individual inevitable mask off moments to realize that all of these fucks are the same? Tucker motherfucking Carlson was the face of the honest intellectual right wing before he wrapped himself in a flag and bible and started making millions on outright advancing fascism. This is who they are. We all know it. Kill baby Hitler in his crib.

  • Kabe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4510 months ago

    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.

    • @mathemachristian@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5410 months ago

      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.

    • TheSpookiestUser
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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/1455537

      • Kabe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        I 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.

        • TheSpookiestUser
          link
          fedilink
          English
          610 months ago

          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?

          • @rist097@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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

            • TheSpookiestUser
              link
              fedilink
              710 months ago

              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.

    • Ace T'Ken
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 months ago

      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.

      • Ghostalmedia
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2610 months ago

        What if it was race? What if they said “this community doesn’t affirm black lifestyles.”

        • Ace T'Ken
          link
          fedilink
          English
          710 months ago

          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?

          • TheSpookiestUser
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1510 months ago

            Would it be unacceptable if it described another demographic, is what they’re asking.

            • PupBiru
              link
              fedilink
              810 months ago

              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

        • @monobot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          610 months ago

          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.

          • TheSpookiestUser
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1110 months ago

            Discrimination against Russians, Chinese, or Native Americans based on their demographic is also unacceptable. That it once was doesn’t make it ok now.

      • style99
        link
        fedilink
        2010 months ago

        Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed

        That sounds pretty intolerant to me. How else do you define a bigot?

  • crowsby
    link
    fedilink
    3210 months ago

    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.

    • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2010 months ago

      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.

    • starlinguk
      link
      fedilink
      1110 months ago

      Intolerant but polite is a great description of sea lioning.

    • @plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      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.

    • AdaOPA
      link
      English
      7
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

        • AdaOPA
          link
          English
          910 months ago

          Thanks for the update!

        • AdaOPA
          link
          English
          510 months ago

          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

          • TheSpookiestUser
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

        • TheSpookiestUser
          link
          fedilink
          English
          910 months ago

          Thank you for the quick response to this, y’all haven’t let me down with a decision yet

          • Antik 👾M
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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 🙄

            • @rist097@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              610 months ago

              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.

              • Antik 👾M
                link
                fedilink
                English
                810 months ago

                Read my edit. They can send an appeal to info@mastodon.world

                • @rist097@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  210 months ago

                  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.

  • @rist097@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2010 months ago

    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.

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 months ago

      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.

      • @rist097@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        910 months ago

        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.

        • Ulu-Mulu-no-die
          link
          fedilink
          English
          510 months ago

          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.

      • arkcom
        link
        fedilink
        310 months ago

        Because not every topic is relevant to every community?

  • @plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1410 months ago

    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.

    • TheSpookiestUser
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4010 months ago

      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”.

      • PupBiru
        link
        fedilink
        1010 months ago

        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

        • TheSpookiestUser
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • @plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            210 months ago

            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.

            • TheSpookiestUser
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1010 months ago

              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.

              • @plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                310 months ago

                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.

                • BrokebackHampton
                  link
                  fedilink
                  7
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  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.

        • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1210 months ago

          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.

    • crowsby
      link
      fedilink
      910 months ago

      So they can go a little Westborough, as a treat.

    • hypelightfly
      link
      fedilink
      810 months ago

      No one forced you to defend bigotry. That’s something you chose to do.

  • FizzlePopBerryTwist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That in itself is overstepping what Christianity is about. At the core, you only need to believe a few things:

    1. Jesus is God

    2. God is Triune

    3. 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.

    • BrokebackHampton
      link
      fedilink
      1510 months ago

      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.

    • Norgur
      link
      fedilink
      910 months ago

      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

      • Lodespawn
        link
        fedilink
        310 months ago

        Or tabernacles and funny hats … whichever is more appropriate

        • Lodespawn
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          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?

    • AdaOPA
      link
      English
      14
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Go away bot, I know what I’m doing. I have zero desire to make it easier for people to access the community

      • @jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1110 months ago

          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 🤦

        • AdaOPA
          link
          English
          110 months ago

          paternalistic

          That would be a neat trick

  • arkcom
    link
    fedilink
    410 months ago

    Why not tell the mods to correct the rules if you don’t like them, instead of just deleting the whole thing?

    • AnonymousLlama
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      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

      • AngrilyEatingMuffins
        link
        fedilink
        1210 months ago

        Y’all need to stop thinking of hate groups as being avoidable with shit like blocking. For marginalized people it matters more that these fucks coalesce and organize with one another. It’s not about seeing some dickhead drop an F bomb it’s about the fact that fascism is ascendant and this kind of shit is how it got that way.