I was abused by my christian parents.
I would like to live long enough to see humanity mature out of superstition and free the world from human greed.
No, I’m speaking as if she was touched without her consent. Because she was. We shouldn’t normalize that.
Children should know that they have autonomy. Children should be taught the importance of consent so they can protect themselves. Adults should know better than to touch others without consent.
I referred to the fact that in certain cultures, a persons head is a seen as especially sacred.
Oh? I see; Singapore is such a place. I did not know that.
In those cultures, touching the head is not “relative tame”.
I live in the United States. Here, a pat on the head is condescending if unwelcome, but not as creepy as, say, touching a shoulder. Also, Our president is a pedophile. I am wary of anything that could be construed as normalizing the violation of consent and boundaries.
I hope you learned something, but try to listen to understand, not only to react. Good luck, and all the best.
I’m very concerned for victims of abuse. I wish I could help them.
Your comment does make more sense with the cultural context. Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for insinuating that you had any ill intent, I lacked the information to interpret your comment any other way.
Mentally ill people are not fucking around. They are also not finding out because they don’t always understand what they did or why others reacted,
Good point. Ideally, we would not have such a mental illness epidemic in the first place, and some people blur the line between “mentally ill” and “creep”, but in the interests of not harming the innocent we should be cautious to exercise undue force.
They just need help. Actually i think you might be one of those people.
My christian parents have been hitting me since before I could think. I am seeking help, but I live in the US. Everything’s slow and the therapists have not been good. I’m trying a fifth one in a week or so.
My kids have like all kids acted inappropriately in public at times, and i don’t want to know how you would respond to it if they accidentally invaded your personal space in the process.
At young ages, that is typical. They are still developing, learning boundaries. I do not advocate hitting children. Assuming the old man was not mentally ill, he should have known better.
Yeah. I realize I can be intense sometimes, but I think it’s very important to advocate for those who can’t advocate for themselves. My autonomy was violently disregarded by my parents. I want to protect others because no one protected me. I don’t know the best way to do that, so I try to use what I’ve got. What I’ve got is a broken foundation and a lot of anger, fear, and pain. It’s easy to lash out, though probably not the most effective way of getting through to people.
Thanks for caring.
I pity your children.
The golden rule covers this.
Put yourself in the girl’s shoes. I would rather not be touched by random strangers. I hate the fact that stupid, selfish internet people have normalized my lack of autonomy. I hate you for being a coward while feigning moral superiority.
Are you going to condone violence just because violence was done to you?
Literally yes, it’s called defense. Would you let yourself be killed instead of fighting back? The old man was the aggressor. It would be wrong to let him act that way with no consequences. I care more about victims than their abusers, personally. If you choose not to fight at all, you’re choosing to help the abusers.
I think the point stands even if we ignore this specific incident: If you touch someone in public without their consent, especially a child, you can and probably should be harmed in retaliation. Boundaries and consent are essential. Fuck around, find out.
My parents hit me before I could think. Instead of stopping them, you’re defending their mindset.
Fuck you. Children are people.
Personally i think that son should realise dad is at a stage where they should not go outside on their own
I’m not sure son gives a shit about his father or the victim, too many dollar signs in his eyes as he seeks “justice”.
The old man was in the wrong, and he was a victim of violence.
The old man was in the wrong and didn’t learn shit. He was not a victim. He made an unacceptable choice.
When your kids are the ones being touched, I hope you tell them the truth: that you personally encouraged their abusers.
Can you explain what you meant by “especially thier heads”? Where is it acceptable for a child to be touched without their consent, according to you?
People are normalizing child abuse. It’s a huge problem.
But at least these parents understand after the fact that they could responded better.
And the old man and every other pervert have been encouraged to offend again. Really fucked up that you’re not getting this. The old man did something wrong and harmful, and now is pretending to be the victim.
But now the message is, “old people can touch whoever they want and you’ll be punished for stopping them.”
Earlier, Yeo told Singapore news outlet Channel News Asia that he had patted the little girl’s head because she “was very adorable”.
Stupid, shallow, selfish.
“Old people like to pat young children’s heads,” he said.
That does not make it okay. What the actual fuck?
He added that he started hurting hours after the fall, and that he was taking paracetamol for his pain.
I feel zero sympathy, dude should not have touched a child.
In another post, the elderly man’s son thanked the police for responding to the matter quickly, adding that he sincerely hoped “justice will be served for my father”.
Justice was almost served, but apparently he didn’t get his ass kicked hard enough.
The father should not apologize, the old man should. He got off lucky.
I was abused, so it is a bit of a sore subject. It has been normalized. We need to reverse that. Children are human beings. Old men do not have the right to touch them. It’s alarming that so many people are getting this backwards. Think a bit more, please.
Really? You can’t think of anywhere else that would be worse?
The head is relatively tame, but the point is that he violated her personal space, her boundaries, without asking. He treated her like an object for his appreciation. Do you think young children should be okay with strange old men touching them? Do you think their parents should be okay with that? I don’t. I can’t say whether their choice was the best one, but I am absolutely glad they did something about it.
I don’t think the head pat is a message that the child is his property.
What does the child think?
What type of “retribution” do you think is deserved here?
Hard to say. It’s partly why I wonder what they said to each other.
It’s crazy that you would even use that word.
It’s crazy that you’re trying to normalize child abuse.
Retribution is defined as punishment inflicted as vengeance.
Correct. Do you know why? Because the damage was already done. He did not ask before touching, he touched someone else’s child. No one can undo that. We could ask him politely not to do it again, but would that deter him and others like him? No. Show them what happens when they choose to casually violate the boundaries of others.
Why are you more interested in defending the aggressor than the victims?
What do we know?
A video of the incident shows the elderly man patting the child on the head as he walked past her table at a food court in a shopping centre.
A woman seated at the same table, believed to be the girl’s mother, immediately stopped him. Another man believed to be the father, walking back to the table, confronted the elderly man.
After what appeared to be a heated exchange, the younger man was seen grabbing the elderly man’s arm and throwing him to the ground.
Seemingly, a strange man violated a child’s personal space without her consent. What message does it send the child? “You are property for others to touch when they please?” Yes, that probably deserves retribution. People should know that this behavior is unacceptable. I wonder what words were exchanged.
They believed they saw Jesus risen.
How many firsthand accounts do we have? I found Paul’s in Acts and Corinthians, but Paul also seems to have spoken for James. Did James or anyone else record meeting Jesus after resurrection themselves? I would especially prefer to hear it from more consistent and verifiable historical sources than the bible. The gospels were written in 70-100 AD, long enough for rumors to grow into legends.
If someone is going to die in regards for something they saw, it’s likely true.
No. If someone is going to die for something they saw, it means they believed it. It doesn’t mean it’s true. I maintain that it is far more likely that A) they made it up B) they hallucinated or dreamed it C) they were tricked, or any other number of explanations before “dead man who claimed to be a death god returned from the dead to prove his resurrection, but only to people around at the time and then he disappeared forever.”
why would I give my life up for something that’s a lie?
What if you did not see what you think you saw? For example, it could have been some kind of criticism of Kim Jong Un, someone impersonating him and pretending to cheat. Or you saw him with his wife, but did not recognize her for any number of reasons. Maybe she was pretending to be someone else because they like it kinky.
Your willingness to die is only evidence that you were convinced, not that the thing you witnessed was true.
The apostles who gave their life up had nothing to gain.
They thought they would be rewarded in the afterlife. It is a death cult.
Therefore there is no other plausible explanation than that it really happened.
I have provided many plausible alternatives, and scholars have more. Jesus can’t be god because god can’t exist. The old testament contradicts itself and our reality with surprising frequency.
I have grown up surrounded by different denominations, I know my statement is factually correct.
For your area, maybe, but I suspect you were just ignoring the conflicts. Having grown up in southern baptist churches, I know my statement is factually correct, different denominations can and do fight over their interpretations of the bible.
Christ alone saves - which is what Christianity has generally taught in every denomination anyway, and work towards removing the distressing superstition of works-based salvation.
But that’s bullshit. People “accept Jesus” to get saved. Then what? Then they are expected to obey him completely. It immediately becomes all about works, sustaining an abusive relationship under threat of supernatural obliteration.
The evangelicals I knew were insistent that everyone should follow their particular denomination.
If you are going to provide an example of what I am saying is being wrong, you’re either going to provide an example of some war from three hundred years ago or an example of some dude in the middle of nowhere in one congregation with a whole flock of like 30 people being a sectarian douchebag saying he is the one true church.
So you’ve chosen to reject evidence in advance? Dishonest.
So no one is telling these catholics they’re going to hell? https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bluecollarapologetics/2024/05/all-catholics-are-going-to-hell-really/
The Orthodox Church is the true Church.
What does that make other churches?
https://www.pravmir.com/do-all-non-orthodox-people-go-to-hell/
But they know it’s bad PR to say others are going to hell, so they came up with this complete cop-out:
If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense we cannot always say
“If they’re saved, they’re one of us… somehow.” Ridiculous.
Do you value individual experiences? How many Reddit posts do you think we can find where religious people are either condemning each other or venting about being condemned? How many points of data do you need to be convinced of a problem’s existence?
unless you’re counting sects which aren’t even Christian like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons
There you go rejecting evidence again. Let’s check the Jehovah’s Witness website:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/
We are Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior.
And mormons?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng
Common Questions
Are members of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints christian?
Yes! As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World.
I’m curious why you don’t consider them. If christ was here, we could ask him. Since he isn’t, anyone can claim christianity, and they have exactly as much evidential support for their beliefs as you do.
Your original quote was:
Denominations agree on 95% of things.
I asked for a citation, as I doubt the veracity of that arbitrary 95%. You said:
Find any Church that publishes a statement of faith
This is unhelpful, as we need a many-to-many comparison: many different denominations, and many different beliefs held by each.
Denominations are formed over random stuff, usually church structure.
This is ignoring a lot of violent history.
During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, a number of denominations broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in response to what they saw as corruption and abuse of power within the Church. These Protestant groups believed in the primacy of individual interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to following the teachings of a central authority like the Pope.
Already we see three broad factions with fundamentally incompatible beliefs:
Catholics believe in the authority of the Pope and the sacraments
[Orthodox] believe in the authority of the Bible and the church’s teachings
[Protestants] believe in the authority of the Bible and emphasize the role of individual interpretation in spiritual matters.
Hmm, interesting. So what happens when individuals interpret the bible?
There are many denominations within Protestantism, such as Anglicanism, Baptism, Lutheranism, Methodism, and Pentecostalism.
We get even more division, because there is no standard and there never was.
How different are they? Quite. Does the trinity exist? Are we saved by faith, works, or both? Should we listen to a guy in a funny hat, a different guy in a funny hat, or whichever preacher is most convenient?
Are there divine consequences for choosing the wrong denomination? Depends on which denomination you ask.
They all claim to believe in christ, but they all have different interpretations of what that means, what his teachings meant, how to follow them, etc.
If you say this to me one more time I am going to donate £5 to a church’s evangelical outreach on your behalf.
“You accused me of supporting terrorism, so I’m going to fund terrorists because you’re annoying” is a concerning mindset for anyone to have.
I can rephrase it as a more polite request: Would you consider making choices that are less likely to result in the needless suffering and death of yourself, me, and everyone else alive today?
But I feel that undermines the urgency. Your casual denial of reality is harmful, deadly. We can’t measure your christ or your god. We can count the real bodies left in the wake of selfish believers.
Please think carefully.
It was, on me. And it happens because assholes like you normalize abuse and defend aggressors instead of victims.
It does, the child’s consent was disregarded and her personal space was violated. This is unacceptable.
I’m still not convinced you realize you’re literally trying to defend abuse.
Fuck off.