• zabadoh@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    He’ll quite possibly be the first Saint to have the porn stash on his hard drive or phone thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by theology students.

      • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        5 months ago

        In a sense, yes. All those other fuckers are a distant past when people were dumber and the Catholic church was a global political power.

        At least to me it’s more acceptable that they did it to maintain control over a whole continent, that’s human behaviour and perfectly understandable, even if shitty. But this here is worse because there’s no other reason than people truly believing in it.

        I’m kinda afraid when I’m surrounded by psychos whose imaginary all-powerful friend tells them what to do and who believe a random dead dude did a miracle.

        • rentar42@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          At a quick, manual count the roman catholic church has canonized about 40 new saints since 2000. Not all those other fuckers are in the distant past ;-)

          I hear you, but I still think that the idea of the church and saints hasn’t gotten any worse: it’s “just” that the rest of the world has moved on when they haven’t (which is basically their founding principle).

          Or put differently: saints haven’t gotten stupider, but our standards have changed.

          Edit: I have to put my own point into relation: the only saints that actually lived in the 21st century from that list seem to be a pope and 21 IS beheading victims, so yeah, even among those recently canonized saints a huge chunk has bean dead for 100+ years.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            I still think that the idea of the church and saints hasn’t gotten any worse: it’s “just” that the rest of the world has moved on when they haven’t

            That’s a very common way of an idea becoming worse: insisting on the same old delusion as the rest of the world moves on.

            Example: A geocentric universe didn’t seem like such a stupid idea a millennium or two ago, but nowadays where we know better, it’s known to be absolute nonsense that only the blindest fundamentalist honestly believes.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 months ago

    According to tradition, Saint Bartholomew was flayed alive and then beheaded.

    I’m just saying, saint standards have dropped.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          Dude made a website. I would think the 70 yearolds were impressed that the guy was the first person to be good with computers

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    who cares?

    Leader of a cult who believes in sky wizard, makes other random cult member slightly more important in the cult

    • rentar42@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s probably not a popular opinion here, but: parents do not have a right to their child. If the child was cool with this, then that is the important part (and from what I read I’d guess he would be).

      Let’s posit it the other way around: a deeply religious pair of parents raises a kid that ends up being strongly anti-religion and comes to some “fame” due to that. Would you describe those celebrating that kid as “cunts” as well? And if not: why?

      And no, I’m not religious myself and think a lot of that stuff is stupid and much of it is dangerous, but “those parents deserve better” is an argument that’s used in exactly the opposite way in other areas: to oppress kids that don’t “submit to the norm” that their parents think are best.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      His parents may not have been religious, but they supported their son’s choice of faith, and he took it seriously. If I were them I wouldn’t be offended by this. If they are offended, they can get over it, this was their son’s faith.

  • Granite@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    I genuinely wonder what they listed for his post-death miracles (a saint requirement). Are they technology related?

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        They’re not the most miraculous miracles. A person might miss them if they weren’t specifically searching for miracles.

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, yes and no. You read the article and think, “that…sounds like bullshit.” You don’t read the article, read the two paragraphs where they attribute the “miracles” to this kid and think “what miracles are they attributing to him?”

          lol see what I mean? It’s not a super uncommon thing for people to not read the article. I’d say even maybe the majority of commenters don’t.