Vigils held nationwide for nonbinary Oklahoma teenager who died day after school bathroom fight
apnews.com
Vigils took place across the nation for Nex Benedict, who died the day after a fight in a high school bathroom in which the nonbinary student claimed to be a target of bullying.

Vigils took place across the nation for an Oklahoma teenager who died the day after a fight in a high school bathroom in which the nonbinary student said they were a target of bullying.

Nex Benedict, a 16-year-old who identified as nonbinary and used they/them pronouns, got into an altercation with three girls in an Owasso High School bathroom who were picking on Benedict and some friends. The girls attacked Benedict for pouring water on them, the teen told police in a video released Friday.

Benedict’s mother called emergency responders to the family home the day after the fight, saying Benedict’s breathing was shallow, their eyes were rolling back and their hands were curled, according to audio released by Owasso police.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      63·
      9 months ago

      Yep. Not only do they worship someone who they claim is the font of wisdom but never said a thing about rape or slavery, they also have a follow-up writer who hates women and gay people and a prequel book full of horrors.

      On top of that, their savior very clearly says that anyone who doesn’t worship him goes to hell. John 3:18 if you’re curious.

      So if by ‘liberal Christians’ you mean ‘Christians who reject their own religious text’ then maybe they need a new religion that they actually agree with.

      • Aermis@lemmy.world
        13·
        9 months ago

        If you don’t believe in God why do you care about hell? Christians can worship God and have beliefs that aren’t aligned with government policy. You think Christianity is a political party? Christians don’t vote (and should not vote) by the Bible. If they did the republican party nor the democratic party would align with their beliefs if they held them true to the bible. You don’t need to reject biblical text when you vote for either party. But you do reject biblical text when you vote for the sake of “owning” or any form of despising another human.

        Jesus was pretty specific to give unto the governments of the world what they demand. Christians aren’t to create a Christian nation on earth, because the political body of christ (the temple) is not the physical land of a nation, but the heart of the people living in any nation.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          41·
          9 months ago

          I’m talking about their archaic and backward beliefs, not what I care about.

          Jesus was pretty specific to give unto the governments of the world what they demand.

          Yes. He was also pretty specific about anyone not believing in him deserving eternal torture. And he totally lacked specificity when it came to things like slavery and rape- but took the time to talk about why divorce was bad. Why would you venerate such a person?

          • Aermis@lemmy.world
            13·
            9 months ago

            Christ didn’t come to change social or economic structure. His teachings were aimed at the orientation of the heart and soul. His stance on how you treat slaves as well as how you are to serve are clear on where your heart should be, while not speaking of current social or economical structures.

            I’m not here to argue or defend Christ. I made my comment just to say Christianity and many religions are not strictly aligned to conservatism as it comes in political parties.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              31·
              9 months ago

              I never said anything about political parties.

              I said religion is conservative and right-wing. Christianity included. Because Christianity holds on to antiquated morals about slavery, equality, sex, etc.

              As for this-

              His stance on how you treat slaves as well as how you are to serve are clear on where your heart should be, while not speaking of current social or economical structures.

              How you treat slaves is free them. Weird how Jesus never suggested as much. Also weird how you seem to be excusing slavery as long as slaves are treated well.

              There is one single acceptable moral stance on slavery in today’s world and Jesus, despite being venerated by Christians as the source of morality, didn’t adopt that stance. Because religion is conservative and right-wing even if its adherents don’t like it or understand that.

              • Aermis@lemmy.world
                12·
                9 months ago

                You’re literally arguing right wingism and stances as it comes to governing.

                And don’t twist this around to saying Christians are OK with slavery. Jesus also said to render unto Ceasar your heavy taxes in a Roman empire where the wealth disparity and poverty was crippling. This doesn’t mean Jesus approved of gouging and wealth hoarding. He consistently taught to be the servant and to give. Not to own slaves own lucrative businesses. And before you bring up Paul’s letters to the ephesians again this is about where you are in your societal structure not changing, but orient your heart.

                These were structural issues that again Jesus did not come to fix. The messiah that was hoped for was one like Macabee that frees the jews from Greek rule. This wasn’t the case to be freed from Roman rule. Jews have been freed and enslaved for many generations. Isaiah’s messiah was not one of physical world freedom, but one of the freedom in your spirit. And if you’re missing that then you’re missing the entirety of what it means to be a Christian.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  31·
                  9 months ago

                  And don’t twist this around to saying Christians are OK with slavery.

                  Jesus was okay with slavery.

                  So if Christians are against it, they are not against it for the reasons what they consider to be the source of all morality taught.

                  These were structural issues that again Jesus did not come to fix.

                  Again, Jesus preached against divorce, but not slavery or rape.

                  “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” From Matthew 19.

                  So apparently he did come to fix the structural issues of divorce and “sexual immorality.” Just not the structural issue of slavery or rape.

                  By the way, the idea of sexual immorality? Also right-wing and conservative. And came right out of Jesus’ own mouth.

                  • Aermis@lemmy.world
                    12·
                    9 months ago

                    Jesus was most definitely not ok with slavery the way you’re portraying it. There’s nuance in history you’re completely ignoring.

                    Divorce is an issue of the heart. And Jesus taught that man and women that come together should not split. It’s not farfetched to believe it good when people who come together stay together. Earlier in Matthew 5 he speaks of gouging out your eye that makes you sin, or your hand. Not because he expects you to commit amputation on yourself, but to clarify the severity of sinful decisions that he took upon himself.

                    And yeah, sexual immorality. 2000 years ago and today we still have views of sexual immorality. You don’t think cheating is moral do you?

                    Anyways. This can go back and forth for a while. I don’t like arguing on the internet. Especially outside of healthy discussions.