Well, lets take it the other way.
Where in the bible does Jesus say to hate LGBTQ+ people?
I’m not doing the work for you, but it very clearly says if a man lies with another man like they do with a woman they should be stoned to death.
It’s in the old testament, in Hebrew. Saying if a man lays with a male… which my favorite part of that argument goes back to every Catholic/ Christian not being saved by God and their souls eternally left behind… which is what one might call eternal damnation.
So they say. “Yeah we don’t like gays, or anybody who believes Jesus is God’s son”.
Yeah let’s scrap the part about all of us being eternally damned, and let’s leave in the part about stoning people different than us.
Oh and, let’s make up pergatory and hell so we can scare more people and make more money
And when was that revision added?
Does it matter honestly, the book just needs to go
Its not going anywhere until the truth of how it was written and edited over 2000 years becomes common knowledge.
I don’t think even that will do it, blind faith is a hell of a drug and most Christians I know are only spoon fed their bible verses.
Be gay - get high. Got it thx
That wasn’t Jesus.
Sure it was. Jesus and God are one, if God said it, that means Jesus said it.
Jesus says so
I may be an atheist who hates organized religion, but I also read a lot about the early church because I’m a history nerd. If there ever was a historical Jesus who preached anything approaching the message he’s purported to have taught in the christian bible, it was a new covenant and a lot of the old rules were judged unnecessary.
That said, the old testament is a hate book. Modern christianity (especially in the USA) is a hate cult. Organized religion is a cancer.
I love Christian history, it’s so very ridiculous.
Did you know that “testament” meant to swear on your balls (testicles)? They would grab their junk on making an oath.
So, we could call it Old and New “I swear on testicles this is true”.
Also, Christians cut off their balls for many centuries.
Christian history has a lot of foreskins and balls
(agnostic here)
Jesus said that?
Let’s remember that it’s a different kind of love, a love where eternal suffering is considered appropriate, and even just, and that when a Christian says they are excited about Jesus’s return, that means that He will return at the head of a Holy Army and they will murder every non-Christian.
The lake of blood will be 200 miles wide, up to a horse’s bridle!
So, they “love” you, but, yeah.
Remember jesus’s mom was a virgin, that means jesus had no Y chromosome.
Jesus was born female and lived her life as a man.
God, despite being male presenting identifies as non-binary.
You can’t just walk around with half a genome. Clearly the other half were god genes.
Species of sharks, snakes, lizards, wasps/bees, ants and what not do reproduce asexually sometimes. That said… Just like stoning a man for sleeping with another man, the punishment for a woman getting pregnant out of wedlock was also stoning.
So when someone says did you have sex out of wedlock? The answer seems to be a coerced no.
They don’t “follow the bible” so much as they “use the Bible to justify their shitty worldview”
If you want to get on that nerd shit, they don’t bother to correctly translate the bible. The singular instance of condemnation of homosexuality is better translated as a condemnation of pederasty. And we’ve already demonstrated that Christian church leaders have no problem with this.
I bet this argument was made at least a dozen times in church leader debates over the years: “it says when a man lays with another man, not a boy!”
Religious people are disingenuous by nature
Everything inconvenient is a metaphor, everything they like is the literal word of god and cannot be questioned
Those people don’t believe in anything, they’re just dishonest about it, lol.
They just want divine justification to hate the people they fear
Yeah, like following the Bible seems like an all or nothing kind of thing. I’ve never really understood the people that just kinda follow it and think they can rationalize issues away.
Why in the world would it be an all or nothing kind of thing? It’s a compilation of writing from many different authors, for many different audiences, spanning thousands of years. It wasnt even intended to be all or nothing for contemporaneous audiences–Pauls letters, for example, were for specific recipients.
Assuming that the Bible is intended to be a literal, uncontradictory list of rules for living is accepting an incorrect Evangelical theology.
I believe it was originally intended to be a literal account of history and set of rules, but as society’s knowledge evolved and literacy increased the number of people who could read it, the contradictions it contained both with itself and with the world it was trying to describe forced their hand. Some decided to defy logic and reject what their eyes and experiences told them, some decided to adjust how they interpreted the bible from literal to metaphorical (which just seems to me like an attempt to save the scam by those who were in on it or an attempt to keep the sense of security it gave without needing to worry about it clearly being wrong about many things by those who were true believers), and some rejected the premise of the bible (that the whole point of these lives is to serve the will of some mysterious being that chose to communicate with characters in the stories but otherwise only “shows up” via outcomes which show favour or disfavour).
And the people who pull out bible verses to support their hatred seem to prefer the literal set of rules interpretation, so why just treat that one as gospel and not the rest of it?
And the all or nothing bit comes from either this is the word of an all powerful being with absolute control over what happens to you over eternity, written by humans inspired by that being, who should know how to inspire accuracy, or it wasn’t written for accuracy in the first place (either deliberately by the absolute being or because it was made up by humans writing what they thought made the most sense/would give them the most influence), at which point quoting verses is useless because any given verse could be “made up” rather than “inspired”. Being able to say, “oh this part is real but this other part is just a metaphor” just seems either too arrogant or too convenient.
There is wisdom in it, as the other commenter said, but that wisdom is just human wisdom, not some infallible divine wisdom. That’s what I meant by the “nothing” part, it’s either a special book that should all be treated as special knowledge, or it should just be treated as any other book. This in-between where it’s special but also contains stuff to not worry about is nonsensical to me.
It’s also being functionally illiterate, as many (if not most) of the books in the Bible state their author clearly in the first paragraph, lol. It’s not “the word of God” by definition, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a goldmine of wisdom! 👍
For the record… when Jesus was talking about "love one another’ or “love your neighbor as yourself” and similar, it wasn’t the all-encompassing “one another” we think of today. He taught adherence and obedience to the Law of Moses, and he certainly wasn’t talking about loving one’s slaves. (who were property.)
or unruly children that talked back to their parents. (Those… he was all for having them stoned.)
Jesus wasn’t a shining example of goodness, but he’s less awful than certain of his modern followers.
He was a jew, and wanted jewish bullshit “laws” followed
People like to write him up as a someone who would pass for a Bernie Sanders with a beard, but it’s bullshit
Especially because there’s not a shred of evidence that the magic stick-zombie even existed
Yup.
actually, in the NT, when he was beefing with the pharisees, it was because they had gone too lax, not because they were legalistic. Like when the pharisees came and bitched about not ritually washing their hands before eating… he literally called them out for not stoning kids. (which was, IIRC a law in Deuteronomy.)
The pharisees followed the “tradition of the elders” that kind of sorta added some things (like ritual hand washing,) and kinda sorta glossed over some things (Stoning kids that talked back.)
and the ‘good’ bits people like…? Yeah. that wasn’t an original thing either. That time and place there were two movements going on: “Hey be nice” and… basically… the fundamentalism groupies going ‘back’ to the written law of moses.
Jesus literally had more to say about paying taxes than slavery. Jesus would have been that asshole saying “if you just comply, they won’t kill you.”
And all that is assuming he actually existed. (or wasn’t legendarized. like King Arthur, or Charlemagne an his pallies.)
Even if he did exist, there’s exactly zero reason to believe he actually said anything he’s supposed to have said. Or even had a “ministry.” We need not mention the miracles. (well, I am going to mention that there was a reason that he couldn’t do them in his hometown: they knew he was full of shit.)
The point I’m making, though, is even if you just accept it all at face value, his morals were fairly awful. Which is why you get lots of people who follow him and have fairly awful morals themselves.
I have an image in my mind of an orange Jesus grifting and taking bribes to put certain things into the religion for his friends. I have never seen any evidence Jesus actually existed and isn’t an just an ancient allegory.
if- and yes that’s a very big if- we accept that Jesus had some type of “ministry” he was probably on the level of a proverbial traveling snake oil saleman, selling fake miracles and shit. The iron being, that the reason snake oil salesmen were a thing was because snake oil did have some medicinal properties. Which is more than can be said for random exorcisms and stuffing spit-daubed mud in the eyes.
The gospels were written so far away from where it all supposedly happened that no one was going to go back and check. which is why they were working off the septuagint for the gospels of mathew and luke. and none of the gospels were written by the people they’re attributed to, they’re all anonymous.
one of the more fun examples of an insertion is the whole virgin birth thing. (Isaiah 7:14, when properly translated says nothing about a virgin giving birth. The word used was ‘Almah’, which was translated into the septuagint as ‘parthenos’. Parthenos basically also meant young woman, but then in christian literature came to mean a virgin, specifically. A mistake they would have caught had they been reading the scriptures in the original language.
Literally every single “and this was to fulfill that” sort of prophecy they claim is like that. It’s either not a prophecy, or so obviously not about jesus that it’s laughable. (The actual prophecy in Isaiah 7 was about the enemies of King Ahaz, three kingdoms including Israel, who were allies against Ahaz. God was promising to wipe them out. the kid only served as a sort of clock.)
This is the great thing about Christianity.
Their holy book is so vague and so contradictory (even the four gospels don’t agree on details) that you can pick and choose whatever the heck you want to justify your worldview. It’s a ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ religion.
They don’t love Jesus, they love their perception of Jesus
A hateful and exclusive white jesus?
Is there any other type? Besides for racist and anti abortion
There’s also the type that says you have to shill money out for churches instead of poor people
On that note it’s fucking baffling to me that elderly people making fuck-all from their pension see this giant pretentious building with expensive wall paint and gilded pictures and think “I better donate to that”
The Bible is a wonderful book; you can prove anything you want with it.
-Mark Twain
deleted by creator
And before Christianity, the old testament and Judaism was the same way. It’s almost like all these religions purposely steal whatever local belief a particular culture holds at the time, and then twists it however they can to benefit those in positions of power.
The truth is most self-described Christians are devil worshipers bound for Hell. God made gay and trans people because God wants there to be gay and trans people. If you have a problem with that, you are violating the will of the Divine. And if you worship a god of hatred, if you embrace hate and the core of Jesus’s message? Sorry, you’re not worshiping God, you’re worshiping the Devil. The vast majority of conservative Christians are devil worshipers bound for the Pit.
I forgive them for their sins. And God have mercy on their souls. They’re going to need it.
Also, when he said to love your neighbor as you love yourself, he wasn’t just talking about feelings or tone of voice. He was talking about the way you treat them. He insisted that people are required to provide care for others at the same level you care you provide for yourself. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, friendship, you are responsible for all those things no less than your own.
And who is your neighbor? He answered that, too. The people you hate. Those of other foreign places and religions. All of them. The out-groups. And however you treat them, no matter how little you think of them, that god they claim to believe in says he takes it very personally.
Personally, I’m a fan of that radical leftist Jesus guy. It’s a shame that “Christians” are the opposite of everything he demanded and stood for.
Yeah.
I don’t get obsessing over a single quote, only to miss the theme the book obsessively hammers in, which is what you said.
Blue checkmarks fund Nazis!
Agreed. I think that’s the stage we’re at. It’s not occult or shocking anymore.
“Swastika armbands support Nazis!”
“Well, yeah, man, that’s why I’m wearing it.”
These people are openly spouting the same rhetoric as the Nazi party and vehemently oppose criticism of it. They can’t be shamed this way.
this is why it should be perfectly legal to punch a nazis in the face.
I know it’s coming from a good place, but I can’t imagine a DA that would be on board with that. No telling what uniforms lie beneath white pointed hoods.
Remember when the “verified” check mark meant that the accout was verified to be who they claim to be?
This John dude seems to have been quite the wokist.
The First 4 references at the top, are followers of John the Baptist who got bounced from their [Jewish] community for following Jesus. The bottom group “first & second John” is actually a dude named John.
“I can love my fellow man, But I’m damned if I’ll love yours”
Andrew eldritch - ‘I Was Wrong’
They won’t necessarily say it, but they don’t consider ‘THEM QUEERS’ people. Not as long as almighty god still backs the boys in blue and the NRA.
Beloved
Let us love one another
For love is of god and everyone who loves
Is born of god
And knows god
He who doesn’t love
Doesn’t know god for god is love
Beloved
Let us love one another
Amen
Jesus didn’t say such a thing, it was John, Rom, Thess, Peter, John again. (BTW who are Rom and Thess)?
Rom is a Ferengi in Star Trek, the brother of Quark.
rom is likely the Romans and thess is likely Thessalonians
odysseus is that you?
John would be quoting Jesus though, no?
Romans and Thessalonias, two parishes Paul wrote letters to; the “books” comprised of those letters are named after the respective parish.
The bible is so two faced and full of contradictions. Like this:
Psalm 139:21–22 “Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.”
The love one another stuff is specifically and basically exclusively a feature of the New Testament, as are all of the passages listed here. Old Testament God was much more pro religion-based genocide and enslavement. But most Christians will tell you that the New Testament/Jesus revised the old biblical laws and messages. So any “good” Christian should be leaning on it for moral guidance, instead of the books that promote vengeance, slavery, incest, rape, murder, maiming/mutilation, etc.
Not according to jebus!
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Even this one?
2 kings chapter 2 verse 23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
This one too:
Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
There she lusted after her lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
It’s actually exactly this quote that they claim supports the argument that the coming of Jesus overrides the old laws. Not that they are eliminated, but that they are “fulfilled” by/through him. This is often interpreted to mean that where he specifies, they are changed or replaced through him. Such as declaring all foods clean, change from the vengeful “eye for an eye” to the pacifist “turn the other cheek”, expanded adultery to include lustful thoughts, etc.
I’m not arguing in favor of this interpretation because it’s all fiction anyway. But that is the common Canon.
Stop arguing against me, per God.
Leviticus 19:32:
“Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord.”
What is the context of that verse? It could be an example of how not to behave. (Do not mistake this for me defending the Bible, there is no shortage of contradictions or vile shit in it.)
Shut up, per God. I old.
Leviticus 19:32 – “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.”
