As part of my theology class I have to answer the question "Should women serve in the highest positions of leadership in the church?"
I know that the Catholic church forbids it, but I think women should be allowed to serve as priests. What I've been taught about how women are in the church:
"Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. Your adornment should not be an external one: braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, or dressing in fine clothes, but rather the hidden character of the heart, expressed in the imperishable beauty of a gentle and calm disposition, which is precious in the sight of God. For this is also how the holy women who hoped in God once used to adorn themselves and were subordinate to their husbands; thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him 'lord.' You are her children when you do what is good and fear no intimidation. Likewise, you husbands should live with your wives in understanding, showing honor to the weaker female sex, since we are joint heirs of the gift of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Pt. 3:1-7)
But if women have this much control and influence over their husbands, why wouldn't they have the same influence over a church?

I'm not sure what happened. I went to a small parish, and was studying to be a catechumen. I was only three weeks into going to this parish. The priest seemed encouraging, nice, and helpful. He asked us catechumens for our emails.
I would email him questions, and then he'd respond within a day. In one of his emails, he said he was always praying for me. Then, the emails stopped. It's been a week, and I haven't heard from him. I never got any kind of email that said, "I'll be busy, so it might be as long as a couple of weeks before I can respond to you." Nothing.
I've decided to wait a week or two, and talk to a contact that I have there. My first question will be if the priest is alright. If he is, I'll ask the contact if he notices catechumens leaving a lot. I don't want to get involved, because I don't know what kind of a person this priest is. I'll ask this contact if he'll follow up with other missing catechumens in the future, to see if the same thing happens to them, and if this is a pattern.
There was no abuse or foul-play, outside of the spiritual abuse here. I feel as though I'm not wanted back, thus the ghosting. It would be humiliating for me to return. I'm not going to be going to any church for awhile. This broke my spirit.
I might have asked too many questions or been annoying. It also might have been that because we're both youngish, and I'm a woman, he felt awkward. I can't think of any other reasons, at the moment.
Regardless, this has been traumatic for me: I thought about going to the hospital at one point. I couldn't look at him, even if he apologized. I can't look at anything Catholic-related. I don't want to be in a church.
Does anyone know what might have happened? I'm despondent over this.

So I know that the Church of Christ in LA does not want its members dating outside that specific church (and I think they even frown on you maintaining any kind of friendship with non-CoC members), and I know a particular Catholic Church that required both partners to be attending only that specific Catholic Church (neither partner could attend a different Christian church) if they were to be married. And I’m guessing the rationale behind this is that with a more tight knit community, there’s more accountability - but is there any other reason or even ulterior motive that some churches have this kind of policy?

And that’s not JUST because no one wants to hire a divorced, autistic female over the age of 35 who has a problem with authority figures. It’s also because I live in a pricey state now (WA) and I can’t think of another job I COULD actually get and do without going insane, that would make me this much money. You see, after divorcing my ex, I fell in love with a man who finally really understood me. And it makes perfect sense that anyone who would really get ME, a person who has experienced many special and extensive types of trauma, would themselves be so mentally and physically traumatized that they could not work at all. I don’t even blame him. I wouldn’t be able to work either if my spine was malformed from years of malnourishment and I had torn ligaments that were never tended to, among many other ailments. He is quite broken, but not enough to get disability. (He tried once, and the state told him “Don’t come back unless you are missing a limb!”) So I decided I would provide for us. When one delivery app wasn’t enough I started running two at the same time. My dad is gone, and my mom is too destitute to help at all. His family just won’t help, not really, not in the way we need….So I do it all- all the hard, grown up things. Sometimes I wonder if I could have a better job where I helped more people. Lots of people have said that I’m extremely emotionally intelligent, a good listener, and give good advice. I’ve thought of being a psychologist or even a 911 operator. But those jobs don’t net you over $300/day, what I currently make. And we are still barely surviving. I’m quite a talented painter and can make art in various different media including clay and metalwork. But I don’t have any access to facilities for those things, and my painting is so slow that I could not make money at it fast enough to support us. So I suppose I will be a great waste of life, like many people that get swept under the rug by society. Never am I more hated than for my knowledge of alternative medicine. A Door Dash driver who knows how to painlessly break up the kidney stones that food is giving you. An Uber Eats delivery person who could tell you how to cure your seasonal allergies for good. I’m certainly not eating 90% of what I deliver, I know better. Still, I make good money delivering it. What a hypocrite, right? But hey Reddit, you know a lot. Tell me if I’m wrong. Is there another job I can get in WA that will net me over $300/day, if the last ten years on my resume say “delivery driver”? If I can’t stand authority and have been fired or quit from every job where I had a boss? Hahaha….yeah….that’s what I thought….Gig Zombie for Liiiiiiiife.

1. Whitehouse Road
2. Going Home
3. Oneida
4. Her and The Banks
5. Old Country Church
6. Introductions
7. Can I take my hounds to Heaven
8. Country Squire
9. Bus Route
10. Tom Turkey
11. I swear to god
12. All Yourn
13. Catholic Girl Pray for Me (Purgatory)
14. Two Coats
15. I love ye
16. Tulsa Turnaround
17. Way of the Triune God
18. Housefire
19. Honkey Tonk Flame
20. Heart you been tending
21. Nose in the grindstone
22. Follow You to Virgie
23. Lady May
24. Corey Brannon - Sour Mash

Did I miss anything?

Why Congress is Anti-Hindu and Why I became a supporter of Hindutva politics in India until India is completely ruled by Pro-Hindu politicians with Pro-Hindu Ideology.📷

Brothers and sisters,

I grew up in the Indian diaspora as an NRI who didn't know too much about Indian politics or India's internal issues to begin with. I was never religious, I always thought of myself as a cultural Hindu. I thought that Hindus were mostly safe in India being a Hindu majority country with Hindu cultural values.
I thought that the Congress Party was a "normal" party. But when I read about the 2011 draft of the Communal Violence Bill and learned about the 2009 Right to Education Act's inapplicability to Christian minority schools (Pramati judgement), I quickly came to the conclusion that the Congress Party and Sonia/Rahul Gandhi are part of a Vatican/Catholic Church/Christian/Western conspiracy against Hindus and Hinduism. When Sonia Gandhi married Rajiv Gandhi, the Catholic Church saw this moment as its "Constantine" moment in India, when it could try to achieve its nefarious goals by controlling the Indian National Congress. Ever wonder why INC is aligned with Christian missionaries? Who did Rahul Gandhi meet first in Bharat Jodo Yatra? A hate mongering Catholic priest named George Ponniah who spewed vile hatred against the Hindus of Tamil Nadu.
See the following article:
https://swarajyamag.com/politics/is-congress-anti-hindu
In particular, I have a deep hatred of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi who are Catholic Christians. They are evil, completely anti-Hindu, and the brainchild of laws like Right to Education Act and the 2011 draft of the Communal Violence Bill. It is painfully obvious that they are Vatican agents who have a deep hatred of Hindus and of Indians. That is why I pray for Sonia and Rahul's downfall each and every day.
Communal Violence Bill - Do all Hindus know that the Congress Party tried to pass a Communal Violence Bill in 2011 that assumed that all Hindus were guilty as default, just by being born as Hindus, while Christians & Muslims could freely attack Hindus without any consequences? Did you know that this plan involved creating a so-called "National Communal Commission" with a "minority" (read Muslim/Christian) majority that could somehow control the Indian armed forces and the police forces to bully and terrorize Hindus? Luckily the BJP under Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, along with Narendra Modi, blocked Congress from passing this anti-Hindu law. BJP and RSS successfully killed this law and then won 2014 in a landslide. Luckily since 2013, the genocidal anti-Hindu Congress Party has been destroyed in the Rajya Sabha and so can never do something like this Communal Violence Bill (CVB) again. Also, India has massive internet penetration now in 2023 compared to back then in 2013 when Congress tried to pass CVB, so if the Italian scum who rule the Congress Party try to pass CVB again they will be exposed and there will be bloody retaliation against them. Variants of the Communal Violence Bill appear in different Congress manifestos under cleverly disguised names and descriptions, but the anti-Hindu intent of the Italian scum is the same. Harsh Mander, who wrote this evil anti-Hindu law with genocidal intent, is still running free instead of being hunted down and punished.
Right to Education Act - We all know how this law discriminates against Hindus running schools while leaving Christian "minority" institutions completely exempt from its horrible requirements like 25% quota, teacher salaries (that are extremely high for no reason), infra requirements like playgrounds etc. Hindus need linguistic minority status or Jain minority status just to escape RTE on their school. This law is so evil and no other country in the world has laws that discriminate against their majority community in education. How dare a Catholic padre who is a filthy pedophile has more rights than a Hindu to run a school without government interference? This was the brainchild of Vatican agent and Catholic terrorist Sonia. People like @ realitycheckind on Twitter have been screaming about RTE since 2014.
Nowadays, wealthy Hindus get around RTE by running linguistic minority or Jain minority schools. In Maharashtra, for instance, the vast majority of Hindu schools owned by politicians or big businessmen switched to linguistic minority status (Hindi/Gujarati/Kannada/Sindhi/Marwadi/Punjabi/Malayalam) or to Jain/Buddhist minority status. For instance, you'll notice that Ambani school in Mumbai is a Gujarati linguistic minority institution, or that Lodha school school in Mumbai is Jain minority, or that Birla school is Marwadi linguistic minority, or that Walsingham school owned by the Mittal family is Hindi linguistic minority. If the top 1% can kill RTE in their schools, why should a mom-pop Hindu family running a school be forced to take in RTE quota freeloaders?
Given how hard it is to politically undo reservation-type laws, the solution to kill the Right to Education Act across the whole of India is to make all Hindu schools across India into Jain minority institutions on paper, throwing out the 25% RTE quota freeloaders who should be kicked out of non-minority private schools. Simply put, nobody has the right to "free" private school education, just because you are part of a particular caste (SC/ST) or community. RTE is also a tool to infiltrate Muslim kids into Hindu owned private schools to achieve the so-called "secularism" that leftists want. If you run a Jain minority institute for instance, you can avoid such "secularism" and "diversity" in your student body and can screen out certain types of students.
This law was so evil and was the reason why so many communities like the Lingayats etc want minority status. Because no other country in the world has laws that make it easier for "minorities" to run schools compared to the majority community. The Jains wanted minority status and got it from the Congress Party in 2014, solely to protect their private schools and colleges from the evil reservation laws that we have and the 93rd constitutional amendment. Nowadays, all wealthy Hindus/corporate India are running Jain minority schools and colleges in the private sector free from any type of caste based reservation. In the future, you will see a movement run by Upper Caste Hindus against reservation in private educational institutions. Pratap Bhanu Mehta (who is really a Jain) knew of the 93rd amendment back in 2005 and successfully got the Jain minority status from the Congress Party. I've seen really top-notch private schools that have linguistic/Jain minority status and are safe from RTE.
Despite this law there, RSS appointees like Priyank Kanoongoo (head of NCPCR - national child rights commission) continue to try to "enforce" RTE on hapless Hindu owned non-minority schools. I have no idea why RSS doesn't have a problem with RTE. If Mr. Modi himself wanted to end RTE, I could guarantee you that this whole "program" would have been shut down on Day 1.
Why should a Hindu school owner be forced to admit 25% "free" education, while a similar school run by a Christian does not have to do so? Is this secularism? If it isn't secular, why aren't Hindus coming on the roads, demanding RTE to be imposed on the schools that those Catholic rapists run?
The True Religion of All Top Congress Leaders (news-flash, Congress is Hindu hating group of individuals plotting against Hindu civilization). While Owaisi is a radical Islamist, people like Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi are the biggest threat to Hindus on our planet today.
Rahul Gandhi - Catholic Christian
Catholic Christian like his mother. Pretends to be a Hindu but hates Hindu culture and Hindu traditions. Is more of an Italian Catholic Christian who is more comfortable talking to Catholic padres in a Church. Is most at home in Kerala with a large Catholic population. Uses Muslims as a vote bank but is really aligned with radical Christian forces that are enemies of Hindu civilization. Ran away from a Hindu majority parliamentary constituency to go to a "secular" Wayanad where Abrahamics (Muslims + Christians) are over 60% of the population, knowing that Hindus would punish him electorally.
Sonia Gandhi - Italian Catholic Christian, whose real name is ANTONIO MAINO. How on Earth did the largest opposition party (Indian National Congress) get taken by an Italian Christian woman and a Vatican stooge?
Malikharjun Kharge - Buddhist Ambedkarite Dalit. Also has a hatred for Hindu Dharma, even when Hinduism and Buddhism are both Indian/Indic faiths in our civilization that are mutually compatible with each other. Hindus don't have any problem with Buddhism or Buddhists and even see Buddhism as an "improved" or "enlightened" version of Hinduism, yet the radical Ambedkarite ideology tries to instigate Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes from other Hindu castes when all Hindus across our country are equal and together. Hindus don't have a problem with anybody embracing Buddhism.
Manmohan Singh - Sikh who was the first non-Hindu Prime Minister of India. Under Mr. Manmohan Singh's tenure, the Congress Party tried to pass the Communal Violence Bill (2011 draft) which distinguished between "minorities" and Hindus in criminal law but was luckily blocked by the BJP who killed it. Now Sonia Gandhi could have chosen a Hindu in her Congress Party as the Prime Minister when Congress won in 2004 and 2009. But she deliberately chose a non-Hindu to implement her radical Hindu-hating agenda. A titular figurehead whose daughter was found working for George Soros and who has a Hindu hating agenda as well.
Others - Ambika Soni who is a Christian, Kapil Sibal who also seems to be a Christian and so forth.
It is painfully clear that Congress Party has an agenda against Hindus and Hinduism and that their national leaders are anti-Hindu. So, why does Congress still win in some state elections?
Himachal Pradesh - was very close in 2022. Also, the Congress Party in Himachal Pradesh seems to be led by people who are Hindus. Never saw Hinduphobia YET in Himachal by Himachal Congress.
Chhattisgarh - Suspect that there is a massive conversion of tribals to Christianity, particularly in forests. Would be very dangerous if Baghel wins a 2nd term.
Karnataka - BJP government in Karnataka was corrupt and had poor leaders, with massive anti-incumbency with a 36% vs 43% vote differential. Also, the Kharge factor was there and many Hindu Dalits who would have voted for BJP voted for Cong just because of Kharge's Ambedkarite credentials. If the Congress unit in Karnataka supports Christian missionaries or Muslim terrorist organizations like PFI, it's up to the BJP government at the center to act.
Rajasthan - anti-incumbency in 2018. BJP should win Rajasthan very easily in 2023.
I don't think BJP is favored to win Chhattisgarh but I don't want Congress to ever have more than 3 states (Himachal, Karnataka, Chhatisgarh) by the end of 2023.
____________________________________________________________________________
Congress, being a minoritarian party full of radical Muslim + Christian terrorists, should be reduced below 10% of seats in the Rajya Sabha (currently it's at 31/245 or 12.6%).
It is no surprise that Rahul Gandhi called for American/Western intervention in India's democracy to subvert the will of the Hindu majority (see the interview where this treacherous Rahul Gandhi asks American Nicholas Burns to "intervene" in India's internal affairs).
Hatred towards Hindus is Hatred towards India as a whole.
TLDR: Rahul Gandhi should come clean and disclose his real religion (Catholic Christianity). Why should Hindus let somebody who is completely hateful towards us continue to malign us in international forums, insult our people, our country, our government, and our civilizational nation? Go to the Vatican.
What is Congress's Idea of India and What Does it Really Mean? [Differential Laws on the basis of a person's religion, like Right to Education (RTE) and Communal Violence Bill (CVB). Apartheid laws that discriminate against Hindus]
When Rahul Gandhi or some Congress person like Shashi Tharoor (who also seems to be a crypto Catholic Christian) talks about the "Idea of India", they imagine an India where people are subjected to different laws on the basis of faith and where Hindus are 3rd class citizens compared to Abrahamics.
The "Idea of India" people want a world in which Christian schools are exempt from RTE, while Hindu schools suffer RTE; a world where Hindus suffer from a so-called Communal Violence Bill while minorities (Muslims + Christians) terrorize Hindus.
Does this "Idea of India" appeal to you? If you forcefully try to impose Christian or Muslim supremacy on a country with over a billion Hindus, we will retaliate and we will destroy you. In an era where people are connected via telecommunications/Internet and are becoming more literate and technologically savvy, if you do anything against Hindus, we will destroy you. Your fake "Gandhi" surname won't stop us from noticing that you are a Vatican terrorist along with your mother.

Brothers and sisters,
(please upvote this post, because Congress Party and its Muslims & Christian supporters want to suppress the fact that is Rahul Gandhi is really a Catholic Christian who is waging a war against Hinduism).
I grew up in the Indian diaspora as an NRI who didn't know too much about Indian politics or India's internal issues to begin with. I was never religious, I always thought of myself as a cultural Hindu. I thought that Hindus were mostly safe in India being a Hindu majority country with Hindu cultural values.
I thought that the Congress Party was a "normal" party. But when I read about the 2011 draft of the Communal Violence Bill and learned about the 2009 Right to Education Act's inapplicability to Christian minority schools (Pramati judgement), I quickly came to the conclusion that the Congress Party and Sonia/Rahul Gandhi are part of a Vatican/Catholic Church/Christian/Western conspiracy against Hindus and Hinduism. When Sonia Gandhi married Rajiv Gandhi, the Catholic Church saw this moment as its "Constantine" moment in India, when it could try to achieve its nefarious goals by controlling the Indian National Congress. Ever wonder why INC is aligned with Christian missionaries? Who did Rahul Gandhi meet first in Bharat Jodo Yatra? A hate mongering Catholic priest named George Ponniah who spewed vile hatred against the Hindus of Tamil Nadu.
See the following article:
https://swarajyamag.com/politics/is-congress-anti-hindu
In particular, I have a deep hatred of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi who are Catholic Christians. They are evil, completely anti-Hindu, and the brainchild of laws like Right to Education Act and the 2011 draft of the Communal Violence Bill. It is painfully obvious that they are Vatican agents who have a deep hatred of Hindus and of Indians. That is why I pray for Sonia and Rahul's downfall each and every day.
Communal Violence Bill - Do all Hindus know that the Congress Party tried to pass a Communal Violence Bill in 2011 that assumed that all Hindus were guilty as default, just by being born as Hindus, while Christians & Muslims could freely attack Hindus without any consequences? Did you know that this plan involved creating a so-called "National Communal Commission" with a "minority" (read Muslim/Christian) majority that could somehow control the Indian armed forces and the police forces to bully and terrorize Hindus? Luckily the BJP under Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, along with Narendra Modi, blocked Congress from passing this anti-Hindu law. BJP and RSS successfully killed this law and then won 2014 in a landslide. Luckily since 2013, the genocidal anti-Hindu Congress Party has been destroyed in the Rajya Sabha and so can never do something like this Communal Violence Bill (CVB) again. Also, India has massive internet penetration now in 2023 compared to back then in 2013 when Congress tried to pass CVB, so if the Italian scum who rule the Congress Party try to pass CVB again they will be exposed and there will be bloody retaliation against them. Variants of the Communal Violence Bill appear in different Congress manifestos under cleverly disguised names and descriptions, but the anti-Hindu intent of the Italian scum is the same. Harsh Mander, who wrote this evil anti-Hindu law with genocidal intent, is still running free instead of being hunted down and punished.
Right to Education Act - We all know how this law discriminates against Hindus running schools while leaving Christian "minority" institutions completely exempt from its horrible requirements like 25% quota, teacher salaries (that are extremely high for no reason), infra requirements like playgrounds etc. Hindus need linguistic minority status or Jain minority status just to escape RTE on their school. This law is so evil and no other country in the world has laws that discriminate against their majority community in education. How dare a Catholic padre who is a filthy pedophile has more rights than a Hindu to run a school without government interference? This was the brainchild of Vatican agent and Catholic terrorist Sonia. People like @ realitycheckind on Twitter have been screaming about RTE since 2014.
Nowadays, wealthy Hindus get around RTE by running linguistic minority or Jain minority schools. In Maharashtra, for instance, the vast majority of Hindu schools owned by politicians or big businessmen switched to linguistic minority status (Hindi/Gujarati/Kannada/Sindhi/Marwadi/Punjabi/Malayalam) or to Jain/Buddhist minority status. For instance, you'll notice that Ambani school in Mumbai is a Gujarati linguistic minority institution, or that Lodha school school in Mumbai is Jain minority, or that Birla school is Marwadi linguistic minority, or that Walsingham school owned by the Mittal family is Hindi linguistic minority. If the top 1% can kill RTE in their schools, why should a mom-pop Hindu family running a school be forced to take in RTE quota freeloaders?
Given how hard it is to politically undo reservation-type laws, the solution to kill the Right to Education Act across the whole of India is to make all Hindu schools across India into Jain minority institutions on paper, throwing out the 25% RTE quota freeloaders who should be kicked out of non-minority private schools. Simply put, nobody has the right to "free" private school education, just because you are part of a particular caste (SC/ST) or community. RTE is also a tool to infiltrate Muslim kids into Hindu owned private schools to achieve the so-called "secularism" that leftists want. If you run a Jain minority institute for instance, you can avoid such "secularism" and "diversity" in your student body and can screen out certain types of students.
This law was so evil and was the reason why so many communities like the Lingayats etc want minority status. Because no other country in the world has laws that make it easier for "minorities" to run schools compared to the majority community. The Jains wanted minority status and got it from the Congress Party in 2014, solely to protect their private schools and colleges from the evil reservation laws that we have and the 93rd constitutional amendment. Nowadays, all wealthy Hindus/corporate India are running Jain minority schools and colleges in the private sector free from any type of caste based reservation. In the future, you will see a movement run by Upper Caste Hindus against reservation in private educational institutions. Pratap Bhanu Mehta (who is really a Jain) knew of the 93rd amendment back in 2005 and successfully got the Jain minority status from the Congress Party. I've seen really top-notch private schools that have linguistic/Jain minority status and are safe from RTE.
Despite this law there, RSS appointees like Priyank Kanoongoo (head of NCPCR - national child rights commission) continue to try to "enforce" RTE on hapless Hindu owned non-minority schools. I have no idea why RSS doesn't have a problem with RTE. If Mr. Modi himself wanted to end RTE, I could guarantee you that this whole "program" would have been shut down on Day 1.
Why should a Hindu school owner be forced to admit 25% "free" education, while a similar school run by a Christian does not have to do so? Is this secularism? If it isn't secular, why aren't Hindus coming on the roads, demanding RTE to be imposed on the schools that those Catholic rapists run?
The True Religion of All Top Congress Leaders (news-flash, Congress is Hindu hating group of individuals plotting against Hindu civilization). While Owaisi is a radical Islamist, people like Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi are the biggest threat to Hindus on our planet today.
Rahul Gandhi - Catholic Christian
Catholic Christian like his mother. Pretends to be a Hindu but hates Hindu culture and Hindu traditions. Is more of an Italian Catholic Christian who is more comfortable talking to Catholic padres in a Church. Is most at home in Kerala with a large Catholic population. Uses Muslims as a vote bank but is really aligned with radical Christian forces that are enemies of Hindu civilization. Ran away from a Hindu majority parliamentary constituency to go to a "secular" Wayanad where Abrahamics (Muslims + Christians) are over 60% of the population, knowing that Hindus would punish him electorally.
Sonia Gandhi - Italian Catholic Christian, whose real name is ANTONIO MAINO. How on Earth did the largest opposition party (Indian National Congress) get taken by an Italian Christian woman and a Vatican stooge?
Malikharjun Kharge - Buddhist Ambedkarite Dalit. Also has a hatred for Hindu Dharma, even when Hinduism and Buddhism are both Indian/Indic faiths in our civilization that are mutually compatible with each other. Hindus don't have any problem with Buddhism or Buddhists and even see Buddhism as an "improved" or "enlightened" version of Hinduism, yet the radical Ambedkarite ideology tries to instigate Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes from other Hindu castes when all Hindus across our country are equal and together. Hindus don't have a problem with anybody embracing Buddhism.
Manmohan Singh - Sikh who was the first non-Hindu Prime Minister of India. Under Mr. Manmohan Singh's tenure, the Congress Party tried to pass the Communal Violence Bill (2011 draft) which distinguished between "minorities" and Hindus in criminal law but was luckily blocked by the BJP who killed it. Now Sonia Gandhi could have chosen a Hindu in her Congress Party as the Prime Minister when Congress won in 2004 and 2009. But she deliberately chose a non-Hindu to implement her radical Hindu-hating agenda. A titular figurehead whose daughter was found working for George Soros and who has a Hindu hating agenda as well.
Others - Ambika Soni who is a Christian, Kapil Sibal who also seems to be a Christian and so forth.
It is painfully clear that Congress Party has an agenda against Hindus and Hinduism and that their national leaders are anti-Hindu. So, why does Congress still win in some state elections?
Himachal Pradesh - was very close in 2022. Also, the Congress Party in Himachal Pradesh seems to be led by people who are Hindus. Never saw Hinduphobia YET in Himachal by Himachal Congress.
Chhattisgarh - Suspect that there is a massive conversion of tribals to Christianity, particularly in forests. Would be very dangerous if Baghel wins a 2nd term.
Karnataka - BJP government in Karnataka was corrupt and had poor leaders, with massive anti-incumbency with a 36% vs 43% vote differential. Also, the Kharge factor was there and many Hindu Dalits who would have voted for BJP voted for Cong just because of Kharge's Ambedkarite credentials. If the Congress unit in Karnataka supports Christian missionaries or Muslim terrorist organizations like PFI, it's up to the BJP government at the center to act.
Rajasthan - anti-incumbency in 2018. BJP should win Rajasthan very easily in 2023.
I don't think BJP is favored to win Chhattisgarh but I don't want Congress to ever have more than 3 states (Himachal, Karnataka, Chhatisgarh) by the end of 2023.
____________________________________________________________________________
Congress, being a minoritarian party full of radical Muslim + Christian terrorists, should be reduced below 10% of seats in the Rajya Sabha (currently it's at 31/245 or 12.6%).
It is no surprise that Rahul Gandhi called for American/Western intervention in India's democracy to subvert the will of the Hindu majority (see the interview where this treacherous Rahul Gandhi asks American Nicholas Burns to "intervene" in India's internal affairs).
Hatred towards Hindus is Hatred towards India as a whole.
TLDR: Rahul Gandhi should come clean and disclose his real religion (Catholic Christianity). Why should Hindus let somebody who is completely hateful towards us continue to malign us in international forums, insult our people, our country, our government, and our civilizational nation? Go to the Vatican.
What is Congress's Idea of India and What Does it Really Mean? [Differential Laws on the basis of a person's religion, like Right to Education (RTE) and Communal Violence Bill (CVB). Apartheid laws that discriminate against Hindus]
When Rahul Gandhi or some Congress person like Shashi Tharoor (who also seems to be a crypto Catholic Christian) talks about the "Idea of India", they imagine an India where people are subjected to different laws on the basis of faith and where Hindus are 3rd class citizens compared to Abrahamics.
The "Idea of India" people want a world in which Christian schools are exempt from RTE, while Hindu schools suffer RTE; a world where Hindus suffer from a so-called Communal Violence Bill while minorities (Muslims + Christians) terrorize Hindus.
Does this "Idea of India" appeal to you? If you forcefully try to impose Christian or Muslim supremacy on a country with over a billion Hindus, we will retaliate and we will destroy you. In an era where people are connected via telecommunications/Internet and are becoming more literate and technologically savvy, if you do anything against Hindus, we will destroy you.

I (27 Female) and Guy (30 male also not his real name) are friends and have been for a while. He's asked me out once a few years ago and I turned him down because I didn't know him that well. Since then we have become friends and have some mutual friends and hangout occasionally. Now I want to make it clear and kind of hype him up before bringing it down. Guy is an on paper great man. He has his life together ya know , 401K, a house, and (according to our mutual friends) money saved up for his future family, great values, family oriented and is ready for the future and everything that comes with it. He also isn't bad on the eyes, in fact he is very handsome. I'm almost the exact opposite of him. I don't have a 401K (I know I should) I still live with my mom and I don't know where my future is headed.
Guy is a devout Pentecostal. I mean the whole nine. Like the Hillsong Church kind of religion. I do believe in Jesus but not in the same way as he does. Even the most devout Christian/ Catholics I've ever known cringe when they here of Pentecostalism. When CHRISTIANS cringe at you...something is wrong. I also have this personal preference that if I even get the slightest thought that you would kick out, disown or force your children into any form conversion therapy just for being gay or trans or anywhere on the spectrum, I am instantly uninterested. That's your child. Seeing as how he is a devout Pentecostal and even Christian's cringe at that, you can gather that he does not believe in being gay or support or care for the LGBTQ+ community in any way. Although I technically haven't heard this directly out of his mouth, I know that it could be completely wrong, however going off of a hypothesis, it isn't
Also the Pentecostal religion believes in speaking in tongues. They believe this is when they are saved. did you get that. They believe that when you learn to speak in their tongue language that you are henceforth saved. Want to know how they learn to speak the language? They believe that God just one day decides to put the language in their head. Yupp. You read that right. God just one day puts the language in their head. Guy has not been saved yet and has went to other churches and when he told his pastor and other church goers at his church they told him that it wasn't right if him to seek out guidance from other people and churches and that ONLY THEY would know what he needs and when. Now if you're into any form of true crime that might sound a little cult-y to you...because to normal functioning humans know IT IS ONE. There isn't any talking him out of it. If there was however we might stand a chance. Like I said he has all his ducks in a row and is a handsome man.
To add he doesn't drink, never ever not once and my dad has a drinking tour he hosts twice a year and I haven't missed since I turned 21 and we drink old fashioned together all the time. So I don't know if I could handle that judgement too.
So AITA for not wanting to date a guy because of his religion.
(Hope he doesn't see or hear this because its kind of specific.)
Sorry for the length. Throwaway account even if it is obvious to my friends and the guy it's about.
EDIT: I think, my friends think and even my mom thinks he really likes me but is afraid to admit it because he constantly talks about me when I'm not around and asks questions about me.

Hello Brothers/Sisters I Have a situation And I’m in need for advice. Before I say anything I’m Young, lost, Over weight and just looking for a guide to the way to go. so here me I’m at a point in my life where I feel my life could use a lot of traditional Values in my life. I’m pro life, I have a couple of questions about marriage but I’m not against it, and I Believe man has free will but at the end the Lord will have the last word. But Yea I feel my life needs traditional Values and Traditional Hobbies. Like I Sorta go to non-denominational church and the most close thing I can remember that would be traditional is The Cracker & Wine Thing Every First Sunday that’s it. God Forgive me if I sound ungrateful but Like look at Catholics they have a whole lot of history and traditions like Mass, Rosary beads and etc. even the Jewish, they have so much traditions and holidays it’s hard to count. Even The Islam brothers have Ramadan. Forgive me if I don’t have the best knowledge on Christianity I’ve had trouble ever since 2019 but yea I just want some tradition in my life. So please I’ll take any advice I can get but I just ask because I want to be more of myself.

I need advice.
30M from the US.
I was speaking with a friend who grew up Catholic, I told him about joining the church and he told me my conversion wasn't valid because it was for political reasons, not spiritual.
I was baptized and chrismated in the Russian Orthodox Church as an infant. My family is half Polish (Roman Catholic) and half Lemko (Eastern Orthodox). They used to have a lot of tension over religion, I was baptized Orthodox with my sister in the end.
I love the Orthodox churches and Eastern Christianity very much, not to mention as part of my religious heritage. However, it always bothered me that the Romanov royal family were revered as saints and every year we had their icons out to venerate. My family in Poland were subjects of Nicholas II and came to the US because of anti-Polish actions in the Russian Empire. In an old Slavonic prayer book the church would use, there is a part every Divine Liturgy where they pray for the Emperor of Russia and his family - I always thought that was weird. It was explained to me that we keep things for the sake of tradition, just for tradition's sake - that's very Eastern Orthodox, in my opinion.
I joined the Catholic Church in college. The RC community was a lot more diverse and accepting than my EOC upbringing. I also love love love St. John Paul II and what he stood for, my Babcia had more photos if him up than any family member. I found a welcoming community and a deep spiritual connection like I'd never had. I also appreciated that women didn't have to cover their heads if they didn't want, and the church wasn't segregated by gender.
I really love being Catholic, and it means a lot to me. It's a big part of my identity. I got to daily mass before work and confession once per month, I say my rosary before bed each night.
My friend, Slovene American and Catholic from birth, says my conversion wasn't sincere because there was a political element. Maybe there was. But my heart is sincere, and in the end I don't know that I am any better a Christian than anyone else, Catholic or Orthodox - I'm just a sinner doing my best.
I'd appreciate advice.

You don’t have to be from the SF Bay Area, ideally looking for someone from Cali, but I’m open to get to know people from other places! Would be down for a LDR
También hablo español! 🙂
Decent job, usually busy with work, side gigs and trying to stay fit! I’m always down to travel/hike. I’ve done several hikes in Yosemite, including Half Dome 💪
Average built, working on sliming down. Currently 200 but I’m trying to get down to like 170-180!
As mentioned earlier, I’m fluent in Spanish, bien bélico 😅 lol. I do think better chemistry could be built with someone from Latin America, but definitely not a requirement! No degree yet (working on getting it), Business Marketing!
I’ve traveled to Mexico and the Caribbean. I’ve also gone on some cool road trips! Want to visit Hawaii, other parts of Mexico and South America, Japan and Korea!
Catholic upbringing but don’t practice it as much as I used to. I respect all religions, they all something positive to bring to the world.
I’m usually not the funniest guy in every room but I try 😅
Used to play soccer and football! Currently love hikes and I’m trying to get back into medium distance running!
Hobbies include: working on a side business and content creation!
If you’ve read this far, just know I just got tested and result all came back negative 🔥🔥🔥🔥 no COVID 🚫 and no STD/STIs

I am a devout Catholic. I've been infatuated with the idea of Freemasonry for a while now. There is one problem. The Church forbids membership. And to my knowledge Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal made sure it still stood. Declaring people who join are in mortal sin.
It's a thing I'm afraid to take too lightly. So I'm curious about you. How did you rationalize your membership in spite of this?

___________________________________________________
Taken from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/12/14/when_jesus_met_buddha/ for the intellectual discussion purposely. Not for commercial gain
When Jesus met Buddha Something remarkable happened when evangelists for two great religions crossed paths more than 1,000 years ago: they got along By Philip Jenkins December 14, 2008
While few mainline Christians would put the matter in such confrontational terms, any religion claiming exclusive access to truth has real difficulties reconciling other great faiths into its cosmic scheme. Most Christian churches hold that Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and many also feel an obligation to carry that message to the world's unbelievers. But this creates a fundamental conflict with the followers of famous spiritual figures like Mohammed or Buddha, who preached radically different messages. Drawing on a strict interpretation of the Bible, some Christians see these rival faiths as not merely false, but as deliberate traps set by the forces of evil.
Being intolerant of other religions - consigning them to hell, in fact - may be bad enough in its own right, but it increasingly has real- world consequences. As trade and technology shrink the globe, so different religions come into ever-closer contact with one another, and the results can be bloody: witness the apocalyptic assaults in Mumbai. In such a world, teaching different faiths to acknowledge one another's claims, to live peaceably together side by side, stops being a matter of good manners and becomes a prerequisite for human survival.
Over the past 30 years, the Roman Catholic Church has faced repeated battles over this question of Christ's uniqueness, and has cracked down on thinkers who have made daring efforts to accommodate other world religions. While the Christian dialogue with Islam has attracted most of the headlines, it is the encounters with Hinduism and especially Buddhism that have stirred the most controversy within the church. Sri Lankan theologians Aloysius Pieris and Tissa Balasuriya have had many run-ins with Vatican critics, and, more recently, the battle has come to American shores. Last year, the Vatican ordered an investigation of Georgetown University's Peter Phan, a Jesuit theologian whose main sin, in official eyes, has been to treat the Buddhism of his Vietnamese homeland as a parallel path to salvation.
Following the ideas of Pope Benedict XVI, though, the church refuses to give up its fundamental belief in the unique role of Christ. In a widely publicized open letter to Italian politician Marcello Pera, Pope Benedict declared that "an inter-religious dialogue in the strict sense of the term is not possible." By all means, he said, we should hold conversations with other cultures, but not in a way that acknowledges other religions as equally valid. While the Vatican does not of course see the Buddha as a demon, it does fear the prospect of syncretism, the dilution of Christian truth in an unholy mixture with other faiths.
Beyond doubt, this view places Benedict in a strong tradition of Christianity as it has developed in Europe since Roman times. But there is another, ancient tradition, which suggests a very different course. Europe's is not the only version of the Christian faith, nor is it necessarily the oldest heir of the ancient church. For more than 1,000 years, other quite separate branches of the church established thriving communities across Asia, and in their sheer numbers, these churches were comparable to anything Europe could muster at the time. These Christian bodies traced their ancestry back not through Rome, but directly to the original Jesus movement of ancient Palestine. They moved across India, Central Asia, and China, showing no hesitation to share - and learn from - the other great religions of the East.
Just how far these Christians were prepared to go is suggested by a startling symbol that appeared on memorials and stone carvings in both southern India and coastal China during the early Middle Ages. We can easily see that the image depicts a cross, but it takes a moment to realize that the base of the picture - the root from which the cross is growing - is a lotus flower, the symbol of Buddhist enlightenment.
In modern times, most mainstream churches would condemn such an amalgam as a betrayal of the Christian faith, an example of multiculturalism run wild. Yet concerns about syncretism did not bother these early Asian Christians, who called themselves Nasraye, Nazarenes, like Jesus's earliest followers. They were comfortable associating themselves with the other great monastic and mystical religion of the time, and moreover, they believed that both lotus and cross carried similar messages about the quest for light and salvation. If these Nazarenes could find meaning in the lotus-cross, then why can't modern Catholics, or other inheritors of the faith Jesus inspired?
Many Christians are coming to terms with just how thoroughly so many of their fundamental assumptions will have to be rethought as their faith today becomes a global religion. Even modern church leaders who know how rapidly the church is expanding in the global South tend to see European values and traditions as the indispensable norm, in matters of liturgy and theology as much as music and architecture.
Yet the reality is that Christianity has from its earliest days been an intercontinental faith, as firmly established in Asia and Africa as in Europe itself. When we broaden our scope to look at the faith that by 800 or so stretched from Ireland to Korea, we see the many different ways in which Christians interacted with other believers, in encounters that reshaped both sides. At their best, these meetings allowed the traditions not just to exchange ideas but to intertwine in productive and enriching ways, in an awe-inspiring chapter of Christian history that the Western churches have all but forgotten.
To understand this story, we need to reconfigure our mental maps. When we think of the growth of Christianity, we think above all of Europe. We visualize a movement growing west from Palestine and Syria and spreading into Greece and Italy, and gradually into northern regions. Europe is still the center of the Catholic Church, of course, but it was also the birthplace of the Protestant denominations that split from it. For most of us, even speaking of the "Eastern Church" refers to another group of Europeans, namely to the Orthodox believers who stem from the eastern parts of the continent. English Catholic thinker Hilaire Belloc once proclaimed that "Europe is the Faith; and the Faith is Europe."
But in the early centuries other Christians expanded east into Asia and south into Africa, and those other churches survived for the first 1,200 years or so of Christian history. Far from being fringe sects, these forgotten churches were firmly rooted in the oldest traditions of the apostolic church. Throughout their history, these Nazarenes used Syriac, which is close to Jesus' own language of Aramaic, and they followed Yeshua, not Jesus. No other church - not Roman Catholics, not Eastern Orthodox - has a stronger claim to a direct inheritance from the earliest Jesus movement.
The most stunningly successful of these eastern Christian bodies was the Church of the East, often called the Nestorian church. While the Western churches were expanding their influence within the framework of the Roman Empire, the Syriac-speaking churches colonized the vast Persian kingdom that ruled from Syria to Pakistan and the borders of China. From their bases in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq - Nestorian Christians carried out their vast missionary efforts along the Silk Route that crossed Central Asia. By the eighth century, the Church of the East had an extensive structure across most of central Asia and China, and in southern India. The church had senior clergy - metropolitans - in Samarkand and Bokhara, in Herat in Afghanistan. A bishop had his seat in Chang'an, the imperial capital of China, which was then the world's greatest superpower.
When Nestorian Christians were pressing across Central Asia during the sixth and seventh centuries, they met the missionaries and saints of an equally confident and expansionist religion: Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhists too wanted to take their saving message to the world, and launched great missions from India's monasteries and temples. In this diverse world, Buddhist and Christian monasteries were likely to stand side by side, as neighbors and even, sometimes, as collaborators. Some historians believe that Nestorian missionaries influenced the religious practices of the Buddhist religion then developing in Tibet. Monks spoke to monks.
In presenting their faith, Christians naturally used the cultural forms that would be familiar to Asians. They told their stories in the forms of sutras, verse patterns already made famous by Buddhist missionaries and teachers. A stunning collection of Jesus Sutras was found in caves at Dunhuang, in northwest China. Some Nestorian writings draw heavily on Buddhist ideas, as they translate prayers and Christian services in ways that would make sense to Asian readers. In some texts, the Christian phrase "angels and archangels and hosts of heaven" is translated into the language of buddhas and devas.
One story in particular suggests an almost shocking degree of collaboration between the faiths. In 782, the Indian Buddhist missionary Prajna arrived in Chang'an, bearing rich treasures of sutras and other scriptures. Unfortunately, these were written in Indian languages. He consulted the local Nestorian bishop, Adam, who had already translated parts of the Bible into Chinese. Together, Buddhist and Christian scholars worked amiably together for some years to translate seven copious volumes of Buddhist wisdom. Probably, Adam did this as much from intellectual curiosity as from ecumenical good will, and we can only guess about the conversations that would have ensued: Do you really care more about relieving suffering than atoning for sin? And your monks meditate like ours do?
These efforts bore fruit far beyond China. Other residents of Chang'an at this very time included Japanese monks, who took these very translations back with them to their homeland. In Japan, these works became the founding texts of the great Buddhist schools of the Middle Ages. All the famous movements of later Japanese history, including Zen, can be traced to one of those ancient schools and, ultimately - incredibly - to the work of a Christian bishop.
By the 12th century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For 2,000 years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world. Somewhere in Asia, Yeshua's forgotten followers made the daring decision to integrate the two emblems, which still today forces us to think about the parallels between the kinds of liberation and redemption offered by each faith.
Christianity, for much of its history, was just as much an Asian religion as Buddhism. Asia's Christian churches survived for more than a millennium, and not until the 10th century, halfway through Christian history, did the number of Christians in Europe exceed that in Asia.
What ultimately obliterated the Asian Christians were the Mongol invasions, which spread across Central Asia and the Middle East from the 1220s onward. From the late 13th century, too, the world entered a terrifying era of climate change, of global cooling, which severely cut food supplies and contributed to mass famine. The collapse of trade and commerce crippled cities, leaving the world much poorer and more vulnerable. Intolerant nationalism wiped out Christian communities in China, while a surging militant Islam destroyed the churches of Central Asia.
But awareness of this deep Christian history contributes powerfully to understanding the future of the religion, as much as its past. For long centuries, Asian Christians kept up neighborly relations with other faiths, which they saw not as deadly rivals but as fellow travelers on the road to enlightenment. Their worldview differed enormously from the norms that developed in Europe.
To take one example, we are used to the idea of Christianity operating as the official religion of powerful states, which were only too willing to impose a particular orthodoxy upon their subjects. Yet when we look at the African and Asian experience, we find millions of Christians whose normal experience was as minorities or even majorities within nations dominated by some other religion. Struggling to win hearts and minds, leading churches had no option but to frame the Christian message in the context of non-European intellectual traditions. Christian thinkers did present their message in the categories of Buddhism - and Taoism, and Confucianism - and there is no reason why they could not do so again. When modern scholars like Peter Phan try to place Christianity in an Asian and Buddhist context, they are resuming a task begun at least 1,500 years ago.
Perhaps, in fact, we are looking at our history upside down. Some day, future historians might look at the last few hundred years of Euro- American dominance within Christianity and regard it as an unnatural interlude in a much longer story of fruitful interchange between the great religions.
Consider the story told by Timothy, a patriarch of the Nestorian church. Around 800, he engaged in a famous debate with the Muslim caliph in Baghdad, a discussion marked by reason and civility on both sides. Imagine, Timothy said, that we are all in a dark house, and someone throws a precious pearl in the midst of a pile of ordinary stones. Everyone scrabbles for the pearl, and some think they've found it, but nobody can be sure until day breaks.
In the same way, he said, the pearl of true faith and wisdom had fallen into the darkness of this transitory world; each faith believed that it alone had found the pearl. Yet all he could claim - and all the caliph could say in response - was that some faiths thought they had enough evidence to prove that they were indeed holding the real pearl, but the final truth would not be known in this world.
Knowing other faiths firsthand grants believers an enviable sophistication, founded on humility. We could do a lot worse than to learn from what we sometimes call the Dark Ages.
Philip Jenkins is Edwin Erle Sparks professor of the humanities at Penn State University. He is author of "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died," published last month.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/12/14/when_jesus_met_buddha/

I've been doing a bit of research into the history and development on the doctrine, as well as the verses and sources typically used to defend it. The earliest strong evidence I can find is from St. Augustine, the reason I say that is because Origen and Clement of Alexandria are sort of iffy in terms of what they taught, they aren't very high-grade Church Fathers in my personal opinion. I understand the Catholic notion that sin bears both temporal and eternal punishment, but is there scriptural backing to this logic? Someone please steelman the argument for Purgatory, this is genuinely causing me a good deal of anxiety. It seems that nearly all protestants are vehemently against this particular doctrine, and I'm not entirely convinced myself that this wasn't something from Greek philosophy that was later grafted onto the faith. Also, if Christ's sacrifice was fully sufficient for the eternal aspect of sin, why would it not be fully sufficient to cleanse the temporal aspect as well?

Can you still be a good Catholic/Christian if you support/ are a part of the LGBTQ+
I myself consider that I am a Catholic and heavily support the LGBTQ+ and I'm starting to struggle with the answer to this as I believe Jesus would accept all people regardless of their orientation, gender identity and even background. I've seen various answers from different religious circles, some support, many do not. Iwon't be changing my stand but I have to ask since I have many friends who are LGBTQ+ and still want to go to church, participate in service and also do things that are spiritual / religious based because they believe in some form of God, and many want to be accepted by the monotheistic religions because they believe they have a connection to them.
I can't quote the scriptures but gods love is Unconditional and therefore everyone should be accepted
Jesus wanted to preach the good news to all people.
I want to know if there's hope that the LGBTQ+ will one day be accepted into the Catholic church or just Christian society because we live in such divided times.

TL/DR: I want to stop seeing my therapist because sometimes she makes me feel judged or uncomfortable. Also, sometimes she forgets important stuff I tell her. The thing is, I hate confrontation and I'm not sure how she will react. I see her "for free" (covered by insurance), so there is no money excuse. I'm afraid she will try to make me stay and I'm not sure what to do.
English is not my first language so excuse me.
So I 25F have been seeing my therapist (50'sF) for seven months. I started seeing here because of some work related anxiety that was making my life extremely hard. I'm still working on it.
For that, she is okay. But I'm a woman in my twenties, I consider myself to be very progressive, not religious, etc. She is a christian. I know this because she brought up her faith several times, which made me uncomfortable. I don't share those beliefs and the one time I talked to her about my faith and religion (how I'm from a catholic family but have a bad relationship with the catholic church and it's God, she told me "it seems you have a problem with the sins of men, not with god himself". Which... No. But I didn't push further at the time). She also expressed that she disagrees with some of my worldview.
Also, one session I told her something very important and very personal and we talked about it for like 20, 30 minutes. Two sessions later I brought this up again and she told me I had never shared that with her. She forgot. (She's forgotten stuff before, but this thing was really important).
All of this has made me feel insecure about sharing certain aspects of my life. I feel like she may judge me, or that she may make me feel uncomfortable for one reason or another.
So I've been thinking that I want to stop seeing her, but I don't know what to do, what to say. The other time I had to stop seeing a therapist was because the sessions were too expensive, so there was nothing to do about it. Now I see her for free (my health insurance covers it), so there is no money excuse.
I don't know what to say. I don't want to be upfront and say "I sometimes feel judged and unheard and I'm not comfortable discussing certain topics with you" because I don't see the point of doing that, especially if we are to part ways. And I'm afraid she will try to make me stay, try to make me discuss why I don't want to see her anymore.
What is your advice for that? (And especially if there are any therapists in here, I'd appreciate the advice).

I’m a catholic who always admired the architecture and art of the traditional orthodox churches I’ve been in. I love a good old Catholic place of worship and all but today I attended one of those modern architecture catholic churches. It was like trying to pray inside a Walmart. I wonder what is the philosophy behind the arrangement of an EO place of worship and if there is any opinion in the EO churches about worshiping in modern looking churches I.E. low ceilings, no stained glass, exposed steel beams ?

I myself consider that I am a Catholic and heavily support the LGBTQ+ and I'm starting to struggle with the answer to this as I believe Jesus would accept all people regardless of their orientation, gender identity and even background. I've seen various answers from different religious circles, some support, many do not. I won't be changing my stance but I have to ask since I have many friends who are LGBTQ+ and still want to go to church, participate in service and also do things that are spiritual

I have particular interest in the ACNA (because I'm 'murican and confessional), but I'm also interested in hearing from International Anglicans and American Episcopalians if you're here. For the latter two, and especially Episcopalians, what is the experience individuals holding traditional views within the much more diverse communion (whether or not you hold those views yourself)?
In my reconstructive phase this past year, I've been increasingly drawn, for whatever reason, to Anglicanism, despite never setting foot inside an Anglican Church. I think part of it has been the name brand; I've found people like John Stott, C.S Lewis, Richard Bauckham, N.T Wright, Michael Bird, and especially J.I Packer extremely helpful this past year. Another part of me is attracted to a confessional, traditional, lower case c-catholic, liturgical church that also allows for a diverse range of views within orthodoxy.
There are no Anglican Churches near me (bunch of Episcopal ones though), and I'm attending a faithful Reformed Baptist church that will likely be my church home while I'm still attending college. That being said, I'm looking towards the future and I'm wondering if maybe the only thing that's attracting me is what's on paper.
How common are evangelical/reformed churches in the ACNA and how does their faith and practice contrast with more Anglo-Catholic adherents?

Hi new to Reddit so sorry if this is long, also didn’t know where exactly to post this Some background: - my husband and I got married in 2021 before he left for a year long deployment (we had already been talking about it and been together since 2015) - we did a church wedding to make the families happy. His mom’s side is Irish catholic and stepdad’s is Italian. My mom is the only one really religious on my side but was happy we did the church. - I’m an only child with family spread out across the us and no grandparents anymore. My husband is the oldest of 3 and has dad, mom, stepdad, and all grandparents who are close by and involved/ close-nit. I do like having family nearby but they can be judgmental/ gossipy if you go against the grain, even petty at times. My dilemma- I want to have a vow renewal either for our 3 year anniversary (so he’s home for a year at least) or 5 year anniversary (more of a milestone) but want to have pagan rituals like hand-fasting etc. Any time my husband has brought up that he has converted his family denies/ brushes it off saying “there’s only one true god” and so on. My mom likes the idea of a vow renewal and is ok with whatever makes us happy. So do I invite my in-laws and risk backlash? Or do we just have our handful of friends? (My husband says he doesn’t care as long as I’m there)