this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
548 points (95.8% liked)

Not The Onion

18399 readers
1518 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 184 points 6 days ago (4 children)

They wouldn't know "gods plan" if it smacked them in the ass. They're literally worshipping the closest analogue to the Antichrist. These people are violently clueless.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 121 points 6 days ago (5 children)

"God's plan" is literally whatever is happening right now. Got in a car crash? God's plan. Narrowly missed a car crash? God's plan. Cat wakes you at 6am for breakfast? God's plan. This whole comment? God's plan.

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago (2 children)

His plan sucks because he made Pedos billionaires. Wait, god might he a pedo. It's his plan afterall. Always watching you like a creep. Dude fits pedo logic 100%. Worshiping pedos, sounds on track for religious nutts.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Wikipedia is using the pseudepigraphal gospel attributed to James as a source. This had been identified by Origen as a forgery and it doesn't constitute Christian doctrine. Although it does influence Christian tradition a lot. It also cites Jewish custom, where girls are eligible to marry at age 13 (which actually contradicts the infancy gospel of James, which states she was 12)

It's not really reliable and definitely not Christian doctrine.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Do you think there’s a more accurate determination of a teenager’s exact age two thousand years ago?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To use it as ammo against Christianity is just silly. "Oh, the mother of Jesus might have been a young teenager instead of an older teenager because people married earlier back then, and a document known for being a forgery says she is"

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don’t need that for ammo against Christianity, lol, I went to catholic school, I’ve got plenty of material. I was using it to make a flip joke.

But do you have any source for her age? If that’s as unreliable as you say, you should probably put an edit through on Wikipedia.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I've tried before. Wikipedia is governed by reddit atheists tbh. I have tried adjusting certain things before by citing Qualified Christian Scholars (this was on the topic of Gospel Authorship) and I was told I am not allowed to cite "Christian Apologists". The problem with that is, any scholar regardless of qualification who makes an argument in favour of a Christian narrative is by definition an apologist, or at least making apologetic material.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What was the source from Christian apologists for her age, even if Wikipedia doesn’t take it?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

From Marten Stol's Women in the Ancient Near East (de Gruyter, 2016):

Martha Roth has demonstrated that a girl married between the ages of 14 and 20 and a man between 26 and 32.23 Ancient Greek and Roman sources show this was also the situation further west around the Mediterranean Sea.24 This has consequences for our view of family life. Because the men were older and died earlier than their wives, there must have been many widows. In Greece a man was thought to be old in his sixtieth year. If his son married when he was thirty, he would in a sense replace his father.25 The relatively old Greek laws from the city of Gortyna on Crete (ca. 450 BC) in their last stipulation indicate that a girl could be married off when she was 12 or older. The Jewish Mishnah, from the beginning of our era, states that a boy of 18 is suitable for marriage (ḥuppā) (Aboth V 25).26 The early Greek poet Hesiod makes the following comment in his ‘Works and Days’ (695–701):

"Take your wife into the house when you are the right age, neither very much short of thirty years nor much beyond that: that is marrying time. Let a bride be four years past puberty; let her marry in the fifth. Marry a virgin in order that you may teach her devoted ways, and marry especially one who resides near you, after looking carefully at all things around you, lest you marry a source of laughter for the neighbours.27"

A Middle Babylonian text tells how a merchant ‘took’ a girl who was a half-el tall from her parents with the intention of giving her as a bride (ana kallūti) for his youngest son.28 As her bride-price (‘her silver’) two beautiful garments worth two shekels of gold were given to each of her parents. Really the girl was worth more, but instead of the ‘rest of her silver’ the buyer promised to take care (zanānu) of her. She was therefore still a child that had to be supported for some time. An Assyrian text speaks of a girl who was ‘two half-els’ tall and who was likewise given as a bride. Another bride was ‘four half-els’ tall.29 For a boy the minimum age of 10 years old applied in cases of necessity, the legitima aestas.30 It is difficult to imagine such tiny children getting married, so these situations may have essentially been betrothals. A letter says that a girl had already been formally promised to the ‘son of a citizen’ ‘since she was small’.31 In a myth we find the unburdening of the heart of a tender young goddess in the words,

"My vessel is too small, I do not know how to … My lips are small, I do not know how to kiss (‘Enlil and Ninlil’, 30 f.).32"

A Sumerian proverb says that a wife should not be very young:

"Unlike a donkey, one does not marry a three-year-old wife (SP 2.81)."

We don't have any sources on Mary's age to Joseph, besides the Protoevangelium of James. And even then, that document says that she married a decaying widower because it was to preserve her virginity as he didn't have a sex drive, and was seen as a respectable man.

And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; Numbers 16:31-33 how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 6 days ago

Lol, like that billion actually matters when they stand in judgement.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

My thoughts exactly. It's a clickbait headline targeted at anyone who doesn't realize that a third of people believe literally everything is "god's plan."

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

God sucks at making plans for something that is omnipotent.

[–] limelight79@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm reminded of the praying hands emoji people always post in response to an announcement of a vehicle crash on Facebook. If that shit worked, why don't they pray for God to keep the crash from happening at all?

[–] WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I get it... I believe in God as being chaos and to trust "God" is having faith in the present.

But it's clear they aren't actually about that, otherwise 2020 would have rolled along smoothly and they would have had the same "gods plan" mindset during the 2020 social protests.

This is social and psychological manipulation on a large scale. 5th generation warfare. This is war.

Most humans are pawns used by devils and proud that we created this lifestyle of ignorance and arrogance. Regardless of politics and parties.

Stop buying things that aren't keeping you alive. Most people are funding and paying for this fucked up world to become less human and pretend they don't have blood on their hands.

people are proud to be half human and made by mass media. They don't want to know real reality because it's difficult.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

This is war

Class war?

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

But it’s clear they aren’t actually about that, otherwise 2020 would have rolled along smoothly and they would have had the same “gods plan” mindset during the 2020 social protests.

Obviously that was Joe Biden interfering in gods plan, so they were just doing the right thing in trying to undo it.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 46 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This. Trump literally fits the description of an "antichrist" (lowercase; one of a type) and many of the traits of the definite article (the specific Antichrist) described in the Bible.

But then they're not expecting to be the ones deceived by an antichrist.

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 2 points 5 days ago

I remember reading that in Trump's first term.

It's even more unsettling now.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Even if he's the antichrist, it's still God's plan by definition of the term "God" literally. The only question is if God exists or not. Or for me the question rather is if God's existence matters or not.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I'd suggest it depends on whether one assumes we have free will or not.

My understanding of the Bible is that humanity has free will and so there are lots of things that happen that technically aren't God's will or plan (e.g. John 3:16 is pretty well known as mentioning God not wanting anyone to perish but for everyone to have eternal life, but then there's also the Great White Throne Judgement in Revelation where there are definitely some who are cast into the Lake of Fire - the second death). There's a good argument to be made as well for the prophetic parts of the Bible not being "God's will" but simply the result of Him being outside time and space and hence knowing what the result of humanity's free will will be.

So no, I don't think the Antichrist is part of God's plan per se; rather, God knows there will be an Antichrist and that's given as a warning so people 1) aren't deceived by him and 2) know that God can handle him (in Revelation it ends badly for the Antichrist).

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Makes sense somehow but then God isn't omnipotent and/or all loving so looks like a contradiction to me. Or maybe he just gave up on humanity?

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago

I guess that depends on how you define those terms - being omnipotent wouldn't necessarily require the exercise of that power, whilst "all-loving" would depend on whether you consider allowing people free will and hence the ability to reject God to be loving or not.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Romans 9 would like a word:

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

Ah yes, the issue of predestination vs. free will in the Bible. There are definitely some that believe in predestination, or a deterministic/pre-determined outcome. Personally I don't think this is an accurate reading.

Some of the answers to the same question posed here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/77861 - I think cover it well. https://reknew.org/2015/08/paul-teaches-free-will-not-determinism-romans-9-part-3/ also touches on why this passage is not suggesting God predestines some for salvation and some for damnation. Again, I think this comes back to the argument that the God of the Bible knows what people's choices will be and acts accordingly.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In some ways, isn't the Antichrist God's plan?

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

So is punishment, and republicans have been using his name in vain.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago

Yeah you're right, there is an actual "god's plan," but this isn't it.

Give me a fucking break. Grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.