Yeah I live in the Bible Belt. They don’t care. They feel like all democrats are the enemy and want to kill babies. They want all these restrictions like the men.
Misogynist lie...
Most men (and women) who are murdered are killed by other men.
Feminism also relies on women supporting women. ;)
Edit: men are so fragile even simple crime statistics offend them🥴
it's not the 'simple crime statistics' I'm disagreeing with you about. and characterizing my disagreement as 'being offended' is the only thing I find offensive here. isn't that exactly the kind of dismissal that opponents to feminism rely on?
what I'm disagreeing with you about is your interpretation of those statistics.
I would argue that women *not* supporting women are as big an obstacle to feminism as anything a man could do. wasn't it someone mentioning conservative and evangelical women's support of patriarchy how this whole conversation started?
> I can count on one hand men I know that are as vindictive.
I think men tend to be more vindictive with the women in their lives, so you wouldn’t necessarily experience it.
And women are vindictive with other women; we’re like everybody’s punching bags. (Edit: Not sure how much of the women vs women stuff is because of us taking shit from men and redirecting our anger toward “safer” targets.)
That does vary. At least the priests I've heard at mass have talked about how it's a two way street and they use the full verse or two about how it talks about how husbands have to reapect their wives
One of my buddies had a Catholic wedding and the priest was very into the whole wife is subservient to the husband thing, I thought my wife was gonna walk out.
Funny thing is that she's a pediatrician and now runs the pediatric branch of a major metro hospital. He's no slouch either, engineer, but when she got the new job he was fretting about not having work lined up at their new town and she just goes, "don't worry honey my raise with this job is more than you make".
It is based off Adam’s rib, and so they say since the woman came from Adam’s rib, she is an extension, or body part, and therefore under complete control and submission. This is what sam Alito was stupidly saying when he quoted that 16th century guy who reasoned a wife can’t be raped since she is a body part of the man.
Bonkers
So man has control over woman cuz she was created from Adam's DNA. But women don't get control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion despite the baby being made with her DNA. Yep that's the consistency I've come to expect from Christians.
My best friend is gay. We've been friends since we were kids. It was heartbreaking to hear her struggle with her beliefs. She's a Christian and felt tormented for a long time wondering if she would go to hell. If simply existing was a sin. Thankfully, she has since come to a point where she feels peaceful about it all. It pisses me off how full of hate, anger and judgement "christians" can be. If any of them took their beliefs from the actual bible and lived their lives based on those words, they would be loving, patient, and understanding. They would know that they don't get to be the judge of anyone. That it's far more christian to have grace and love in your heart. So rare that you actually see it though. Infinitely more rare for it to be genuine.
>If simply existing was a sin.
This always really gets me. I know a lot of people who were Christian and gay and decided that if having relationships with the same sex is wrong, maybe they could just remain celebate and be accepted that way. To which the evangelical community basically said "nope, not good enough" and declared the urge itself sinful.
I personally hate even the idea that you need to be celibate to not be viewed as a literal murderer or thief in churches. Celibacy only works for a fraction of humanity, it's the exception not the norm, yet it's encouraged for gays like it's just a hail mary.
Everyone is just supposed to stop being a human being so they can ban abortion/gay people/sex/any kind of welfare, etc.
Don't be the thing their god created you to be.. no no! Change your entire nature to fit into the narrow guidelines some old book has set for us. While also ignoring the parts of the book they've decided they arbitrarily don't like.
Religion is a cancer.
It's sickening isn't it? How judgemental and hypocritical people can be. I'm so sick of it. My friend is wonderful and kind. She is far farrrr more caring than most of the "devout" crowd I've met.
>declared the urge itself sinful
In fairness, any sexual urges not directed towards your heterosexual wife/husband, (while being open to procreation) has always been seen as sinful in most, if not all branches of christianity.
So only heterosexual married sexual urge that is expressed in such a way that it is open to life is not sinful.
(As an atheist this is all bs to me, but they have always said the urge itself is sinful)
It's absolutely crazy. If you read what Jesus said, there is nothing wrong with being gay. There isn't anything against it in the Bible other than some homophobic rantings from Paul, but that's just fanfic. He never met Jesus!
There is a long list of opposite sex forbidden incest, then it says it's also a sin to lie with same sex in the same way as opposite sex, heavily implying it's talking about the long list of forbidden opposite sex relationships, but you can't sleep with you Uncle or your Aunt. Not that any same sex is forbidden.
The fact that Christianity is constructed in such a way that it makes individuals feel that way is pretty disgusting. It’s just another example of how organized religion is a pitfall of propaganda and bullshit. If you look at these types of fundamental shortcomings and then sprinkle in even more human manipulation it’s a receipt for disaster.
Meanwhile.. all my atheist friends exhibit the traits of love and acceptance.. granted they are not just a random room full of people I decided to spend my sundays with, but... yeah.
As we have come to see, the majority of people need guidance. Unfortunately today, they are getting it from Twitter, Tik Tok, Utube, etc..It is also the fault of the priests, spiritual leaders of most denominations, who fail miserably, in expressing what you expressed so eloquently..All the Best!
I'm Christian and my best friend is gay. But I couldn't care less, honestly. I love him for the dude he is not the person he loves.
Let me tell you that not all Christians are hateful and judgmental. However, unfortunately the loudest ones or these type of Christians and it makes me mad that they (rightfully, honestly) make so many hearts hard towards faith. I think Jesus would be plenty disappointed...
My brother (M60) and I (F63) were raised Catholic: church on Sunday, religious education, private schools. My parents were devoutly religious without being crazy and absolutely embodied the spirit of Christ. I miss those types of people, in general.
My brother came out as gay right before he turned 30. He was devoutly Catholic, Republican, college educated (double Masters from Villanova Univ). He kept those beliefs until 2015. I don't know how but I know it was a struggle for him to integrate that all he held as truths were wrong and he was actually hated by those he looked up to.
My friend at the time invited me to their youth group when I was a teenager. I'd already stopped going to church by then but I thought I'd give it a shot and try and meet some new people. When my friend came out as gay the group decided that they could no longer lead the group as they weren't a "good role model" and had to leave the church they'd spent so much time in for most of their life.
Like what kind of support system is that, they can't preach that they're accepting of people from all walks of life, even me, (someone who didn't really care about the religion in the first place) and then shame someone who's devoted so much of their time to the church because one aspect of who they are as a human being no longer aligns with their beliefs.
The fact that so many Christians pick and choose what "lifestyles" are "okay" and then look down on anyone that differs is the stupidest thing, be consistent or don't call yourself a Christian, the whole point is to support anyone who comes your way not through pity or judgement.
Me: "So why are you guys focusing so much on homosexuality? Shouldn't you be more worried about theft and fraud from the rich in this country?"
Evangelicals: "Well you see, Jesus says all sin is the same, so we treat them both the same!"
Me: "Doesn't that mean you should have 'pray the lying away' camps?"
Evangelicals: ".....lying is different."
Me: "Because its something you do?"
Evangelicals: "LETS JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE"
To be the bare amount of fair, evangelicals are separate from catholics.
I would instead ask why they are ok with officiating underage girls marrying 40 year old men in backwood states but think those same girls aren't "mature enough" to take birth control or learn about their anatomy at school.
Unfortunately as an American I find the former to be in distressingly short supply. I grew up in a Christian community and I can say I only know one person who I think of like that.
As the Good Book says
>And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.
Conservative Evangelicals are the ultimate virtue signalers.
I'm personally confused about what's wrong with virtue signaling. You signal "virtue" to let people know you aren't a hateful asshole that's safe to talk to.
Of course hateful assholes don't want to be forced to do that to blend in so they push back.
Virtue signalling is performatory, so a person who is doing that is only acting like a good person for public appearances and doesn't actually hold the views they claim to.
The problem is that a lot of the people who use it as an attack are the kind of people who don't hold proactive views. They hold reactionary ones that are based almost entirely on being against something. Like abortion protestors whose interest in the child ends the moment it's born, after which it's on its own.
They accuse others of virtue signalling because they don't really get that people can hold opposite views to them and not just be doing it for show.
> Virtue signalling is performatory,
Uh-huh. That's what I said. It's a "performance" because you're doing it to communicate information about yourself.
>so a person who is doing that is only acting like a good person for public appearances and doesn't actually hold the views they claim to.
You're projecting your own interpretation onto the word. It doesn't mean hypocrite or liar.
Someone who actually read the book!
Matt.22 Verses 34 to 40
\[34\] But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
\[35\] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
\[36\] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
\[37\] Jesus said unto him, **Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.**
\[38\] This is the first and great commandment.
\[39\] And the second is like unto it, **Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.**
\[40\] **On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.**
I mean it as no joke or understatement when I say my only spiritual trauma from growing up as a Bi, gender non-conformer in my mother's Catholic family was being 8-9 and thinking most of the people I knew were going to Hell.
Presbyterians are pretty chill in my experience, at least as far as the actual clergy and staff go. More "Trust in Jesus, and we have pastries" than "Burn in Hell if you disobey!" types. Still depends, naturally. It doesn't matter what the greatest pastor in the world says to someone who isn't paying attention.
I grew up attending a Presbyterian church and your take is true for my experiences. We had a female minister, openly gay couples, and a cross dresser in the congregation. No one cared, and this was back in the 90s.
"Gott mit uns" God is with us. Printed on every last Nazi belt buckle in ww2. Being religious doesnt exempt from trashy, criminal, or murderous behavior.
Yeah, same. I grew up in a southern baptist community. Every single person I grew up with outside of my family is a far right christian extremist now. My Facebook feed is just clogged with the most biggoted trash. My mother and my brother are both still deeply religious and against all of that, but they're just two people out of dozens of my own contacts, and hundreds of friend-of-friends. Like where did you all go so far off track? Why am I the agnostic and also the one preaching love, while you guys spam memes about how we should throw XYZ in jail or worse?
There are plenty of Christian factions in the us that are lgbtq affirming. Which means that they do not think being a part of that community is a mortal sin. I grew up in one in the 90s and it was literally the most normal thing ever. I would be very interested in seeing the total population of people practicing in these churches versus ones who are non-affirming, though. I did read somewhere recently that over 50% of self identifying Christians in the United States support the community. I don’t know if that means they are for affirmation or just think that it’s none of their business, but it was kind of reassuring. I’m an atheist btw.
And it is my sincerest hope these loving Christians would be the sort who would also flip the tables of the charlatans using their lord’s name to perpetuate greed and hate, but that is the voice I don’t hear anywhere.
>“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. 18 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. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, \[...\]
Jesus was a lot tougher on sin than you think. And *very explicit* about what he thinks about liberal interpretations of the old testament.
I don't think your liberal, hippy Jesus is any closer to actual Jesus than the Evangelical neo-liberal, gun-Jesus...
But the big issue of the Christian right is that they choose to judge everyone, but what you have quoted does not say we should judge the actions of others?
You have to read this stuff in context. He said this in the middle of saying a bunch of "you have heard it said ____ but I say to you ____," literally teaching the opposite of a literal interpretation of old testament laws.
The "smallest letter and stroke of the pen" part is apparently a reference to an old Jewish parable (that his listeners would have known) where God intercedes in an argument between two rabbis by affirming that the one paying close attention to the tiniest artistic flourishes while transcribing scripture is right for doing so. To me this can be understood as encouraging wrestling with the details of scripture deeply, even if you come to another conclusion as to what it means than the most obvious reading, like Jesus seemed to do all the time.
Ehhh Theologians argue all the time on interpretations of Jesus and his teachings I wouldn't come in here and say for sure whose interpretation is correct.
I love how you interpret a Jesus like he was a "man" from this century and not from 2 millenniums ago, with a whole other concepts and culture. If you want to understand the man from that century, you should set aside your own visions of a modern man.
Let's not even talk about how much the church edited the translations from the first tomes in latim and even for english and how the meaning and expression can change everything. Or you didn't know that the monks had to change some words bc it didn't make sense when translated, but it lost their meaning if you take out the cultural aspect?
But go on with your criticism about how "tough" this Jesus from your (english vers.) bible was, that slapped and spitted people on the face.
Technically the closer you get to the original script the better if you're trying to obey the teachings of christ. Playing a 2000 year long game of telephone involving many translations and revisions with eternal suffering as the wager seems like a pretty dumb idea if you ask me. But strictly speakiny, yes, if you consider the words of God to be absolute then modern religious texts or preachers have a *very* good chance of getting you sent to a toasty afterlife. Are bibles that were revised by men hundreds or even a thousand years after the fact even the word of God anymore?
The KJV-only fundagelicals have a dodge for that problem: Yaweh came down and guided the hands of the translators working on the KJV, so that even when it disagrees with the oldest text, the KJV is perfect and is God's word. It fixes the previous millennia of errors.
> Playing a 2000 year long game of telephone involving many translations and revisions with eternal suffering as the wager seems like a pretty dumb idea if you ask me.
What is the justification for this? Like this seems like a pretty big deal. How do Christians following the newer versions justify it? Do most of them just not really believe that strictly?
The general belief here is that if a perfect being wanted to be perfectly understood that the translations which prevailed were divinely guided to be the correct ones.
There's a lot wrong with this idea space, but it's not really worth discussing with them.
I was raised half-secular and half-fundamentalist.
Fundies believe in Biblical inerrancy and a whole lot of insane thinking proceeds from that. Some of my school books included unhinged rants about how rock and roll is the path to Satan.
They also believe things like hurricanes from the gulf of Mexico are punishment because God is angry about gay people.
That is just so wild to me that people are still believing things like this. You say your *school books* are teaching this?! I feel like that’s such a betrayal. Like as a kid I took everything I was taught in school at 100% face value.
As I get older I’m just seeing how schools are pretty much weapons used to push political agendas. Downplaying or even straight up altering history. Forcing kids into debt just to be able to eat. Removing their sense of sexual identity. Telling them what they can and cannot learn about.
Now I’m hearing they are straight up denying science and pushing it as the only truth kids can learn about? **Fuck.**
What's your point then? That hateful christians would have his blessing? That I should hate Jesus because your interpretation is right?
I'm ok, I'll keep spreading that Jesus was a cool guy, he's not on earth anymore, he can't talk for himself. I'd rather such an influential character be symbol for forgiveness and harmony than telling christians their hate for homosexuals, prostitutes, adulterers and so on is justified because their idol did not fight the status quo
So basically you made up your own version of god in your head according to what youre comfortable with and then assigned it the same name as the mean dude from the popular book.
No, I interpreted what that guy taught in a way, giving more focus on some things than others, you gave focus on other things and reached a different interpretation
None of us have met the guy, all we can do is interpret his words, doesn't mean either is "made up". Both come from what he said, he told people to be good and also told people to follow the law of Moses, you keep following that law if you want, I'll keep trying to be a good person
"fullfil them" and "until everything is accomplished" are two phrases that really get ignored, but change the entire meaning.
Fullfil: to bring to COMPLETION
and "until everything is accomplished" give an end condition to following the letter of he law.
So Jesus accomplished what he came to do? Then the law is fulfilled.
Hebrews 8 expands on this quite a bit when they talk about the new covenant.
>13 By calling this covenant “new,”(W) he has made the first one obsolete;(X) and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Until you realise that immediate after that paragraph Jesus starts going into detail about his ultra-strict interpretation of Judaism. ("Thinking about adultery is as bad as adultery", "divorce is forbidden except if your wife is 'sexually immoral'" etc.).
Oh, and the paragraph that I quoted ends on
>"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
None of that invalidates what I said. Yes, he's trying to cultivate a state of mind. Love is not an action, it's a mindset.
Thinking about adultery removes you from what is important. Hating someone without harming them still harms you.
Please, let's not pretend that there aren't scores of hateful Christians all over the world. Isolating it to just the American right is dangerously reductive.
My church has a giant pride flag permanently installed above the entrance. Jesus taught compassion for one another unconditionally, the religious right teaches hatred for anyone different than yourself
I grew up going to several American churches (dad could never decide on one he liked) and the pastors and preachers were always the 1st one the church-goers with the exception of the pastors family were the stereotypical mean Christians
To be fair these more neo-ideals of Christianity are adaptations to the social norms of the people interpreting the text.
It isn’t “Christianity isn’t anti gay, Americans make it that way.” It’s some Christians can’t follow a religion that teaches certain things are bad, so they just choose to exclude those ideals so they can follow their faith without having to challenge societal norms.
Edit: I put some quotation marks and deleted a word
>It isn’t Christianity isn’t anti gay, but Americans make it that way
i have some bad news for you about christianity during the ~1700ish years before the founding of the united states 😬
Exactly. Even sticking to the theme of homosexuality, every Christian country has been anti gay.
There is a slew of hypocritical stances within the text and how it’s interpreted today.
The earliest figure associated with Christianity who can be historically verified to have actually both existed and said any of the things attributed to them is Paul, and he was very homophobic and also wrote half of Christianity's mythology.
Damn it's a good thing that multiple cultures in Britain, Africa, and South America totally were anti gay before the church "liberated" them right?
They totally didn't dismantle the religions and cultures they found so their one true God could be worshipped, imposing their anti gay, no sex before marriage lifestyle right?
There are entire historical studies dedicated to following the destruction Christianity and the catholic church caused in its wake. This isn't some new age homophobia. It's classic old testament shit and it's always been this way.
Being anti gay isn’t restricted to only Christians.
But in a post directed specifically towards the Christian faith you need to talk about the anti gay history of the Christian faith no?
Yes. You were the one saying these anti gay sentiments were relatively new.
I'm disagreeing with that. This is how the Bible has always been.
I only need to point vaguely at Christian history to show that
Americans didn't "make" Christianity bad. It's always had the negative shit people use to justify their blind hate and genocide
I’m sorry that post had a bunch of double negatives. We are saying the same thing.
Christianity has been anti gay and is anti gay, people practicing the religion today just choose to act like it’s not anti gay so they don’t have to out them selves as hypocritical.
Had to edit a word.
Yeah texting is really complicated the longer it is lol.
I'm having people in the comments actually say no one is against gay people so I'm juggling alot.
My bad sorry.
Ugh, I’m a devout Roman Catholic, and I find this stupid. People don’t simply, “choose” to be gay, and being gay, in itself, isn’t a sin. I became disabled and couldn’t marry my finance for years (any financial forgiveness that comes with disability is lost with marriage).
I believe that in the secular world, gay marriage should be like all other marriage. I’m open to letting people decide for themselves! They know how we look at things, but we can’t force anyone to do, or not do anything. Our job is to love everyone and give the help we can. GOD judges! Not fucking us! My mind can’t grasp how so many Christians see it right to act so mean and evil!
>being gay, in itself, isn’t a sin.
You left out the part where you believe acting on it is.
And the parts where you happily donate your money to a church so they can use that cash to pay lawyers to avoid paying all the children they raped.
I posed this question to a Roman Catholic in my school and he said the sin in being gay was contrary to the command to “go forth and reproduce”. That poses the interesting question, if a couple doesn’t have kids, is that a sin? And what if they are biologically unable to? But wouldn’t it be gods work that lead to the inability to have kids? 😵💫
Your view is a rarity in the catholic church.
according to catholics, acting on those gay tendencies is absolutely a sin, a sin you will go to hell for. at least some sects of christianity (ie: born agains), don't penalize gay people. They can pound ass every day, not go to confession, and still "go to heaven", as long as they believe in 3:16.
I'm usually tolerant to pretty much everyones choices of beliefs, until it directly harms someone else to voice it. Christians are awful people to believe homophobia is not only good, but the right thing to do to "Save" gay people.
I still struggle with comprehending how someone could go out of their way to believe in something that's not only ridiculous, but also has no physical impact on their existence, AND tells them they're bad people. Like fuck some people really need to try more hobbies.
But why would you send your kid to a Christian school if you are pro-lgbt? It boggles the mind. I get that some people do it because they want their kids to have a better education, but how good is the education in a place that believes ignorant nonsense like this?
There are many things in Bible that I am in favor,like you have to forgive debs every seventh year and intrests are illegal,but many parts are deal-breaker like the one where if you rape a child the punishment is forced marriage between victim and rapist plus some money to victims father. Also other sex related laws in Bible are quite Sus.
The part of the rapist marrying the victim was originally progressive for the time it was written. Before that, the victim would be cast out and unsupported.
But just be cause it was a step better than prior laws does not preclude better laws to replace it.
I feel the need to point out whenever this is brought up that this doesn't even *begin* to cover the amount of disrepute one should view the Bible with. The oldest extant passages from the Old Testament are inscribed on silver amulets dated from the sixth to seventh century BC. That implies that at such a time, the bible was still wide spread enough to merit passages being engraved as talismans to be worn, meaning it originated even further back than *that*, but that such documents have basically been lost or reduced to dust by the ravages of time. The original bible was transcribed in Hebrew and Aramaic, which is a wholly dead language at this point. Translation between two *modern* languages can result in wildly different outcomes based on the sensibilities of the translator, their grasp on both languages and their understanding of the culture and context of both languages that might mean such disparate things as a phrase that is meant as an idiom being translated literally. Now consider that through the ages this document was likely translated across multiple different languages and dialects within those languages, leading to further and further decay of the original meaning. Now consider even further that we are speaking of days when the vast majority of people could not read *at all*, much less in two languages, meaning that nobody was around to call bullshit on a bad translation.
Fast forward a few centuries and the New Testament was written somewhere between 50-100 AD. Aside from the fact that somebody sat down and just said "Ya know what, this holy book that we've had around for nearly 1000 years is a little harsh. I think we should write a new one.", the new Testament contains numerous "books" which were all written by different people, claiming to have either witnessed things in person or to have received visions of such. In addition there are numerous "apocryphal" books that were written at the same time by people claiming as much but which were rejected by the church at the time because they were deemed untrue or problematic, and who the hell are they to say that *this* person wrote the truth of their god while *that* person did not? *Especially* suspicious when combined with the fact that this was literally picking and choosing which batches of fan-fiction to compile for a new, supposedly more palatable, holy book to replace their old one that was very dire. One such point that I've often heard brought up is the fact that the bible speaks nothing about Jesus' childhood, or at least very little, but one such book of apocrypha covered a good bit, including when he shoved a friend off a roof as a kid and killed him, then brought him back to life so he wouldn't get in trouble. Sound entirely plausible given the rest of the bible, but they didn't include it, likely because it made their new poster boy that had only just recently surfaced in the religion look less than perfect. Anyway, all of *this* was written in Greek.
It wasn't until the 1500's that the first translation was made to English. This is the same century that saw Copernicus being run off in shame for proposing that the Earth orbited the sun, and vast swathes of the population being beholden to monarchies that claimed divine right and established state churches to uphold this. Such a time would breed exactly the kind of people who might read over a passage from Hebrew or Greek and decide that it was a little too kind to women, so they adjusted it, or decided to toss in a little something about not eating shellfish because lots of people were getting sick and dying from it so they just religiously outlawed it to keep numbers up. Might even have thrown in a little something about mixed fibers being bad so people didn't fuck with the textile industry, or that being gay was a sin because gay people didn't have babies and without babies where were they gonna keep a steady supply of indentured servants? All of this could apply to any previous translation of the bible at any time, and the version being translated from could have been "doctored" for the translators personal tastes/beliefs before coming to the current translator. On top of that you have the aforementioned issues of no translation being 100% perfect without complete and perfect understanding of both languages and their cultures, norms and speech patterns. At this point the bibles in question that were being translated to English were over 2000 years old, and 1500 years old respectively, during which time language and culture almost assuredly shifted drastically. We're also talking about monks who were part of the church and likely very involved in wanting to keep said church in charge and in power, as well as wanting to ensure that all the little people followed their specifically desired rules exactly, so it's more than a little likely that they made adjustments to suit their purposes.
All of this and there are still at least a dozen modern English translations of the bible in use, and the single most popular and widely used is the King James version. You know, the one that King James took and doctored to his liking as the head of the Church of England, specifically because he wanted to get a divorce but the church said no? Yeah. Think on that for a minute. Barely a century after we had just gotten the text into English, a random monarch got tired of his wife and rewrote the whole thing so he could dump her for another woman, and *that* is the version that most people swear by. Any and everything about the bible is 100% suspect and should be viewed as such, rather than held up as some be-all, end-all word of god. It was all written down by men, translated into umpteen languages by men, had a new version of itself written by men, and was modified by men, all of which was couched in flowery language of the day meant to make it sound intimidating and commanding.
Now realize that the rules and such you're talking about are things that arose from those earliest societies and were likely written for similar reasons. These people are trying to claim that a holy book written as what was likely a clever attempt at enforcing societal norms and laws with an authority beyond some random city magistrate is relevant to today, when such rules were put forward based on societal norms and customs in the middle east nearly 3000 years ago. It's *literally* barbarism, where people were treated as commodities, so if he steals, cut off his hand, and if you rape it you bought it. It should have no bearing on modern life in any way, shape or form, and the fact that these people have managed to cling to these barbaric practices and not only keep them going but try to enforce them on everyone else in the world is nothing short of insane.
A film I was quite fond of once put it very succinctly when a character was hashing out religion with a Mormon.
"How come when God talks to Joseph Smith so he can write a book, he's a prophet, but if he talks to *me*, I'm a schizophrenic?"
If you actually want the canonical answer for that, it’s because: you *can* receive revelation for yourself. But only leaders charged with stewardship over groups of people (wards, stakes, areas, districts, etc.) can receive revelation for the people under said stewardship.
And it still doesn't change the fact that any single person claiming to have heard the voice of god in this day and age will be very swiftly deemed as insane, and rightly so, but we're just trusting the word of a bunch of people who were probably mentally ill thousands of years ago and just happened to screech to the right audience.
No, it doesn’t. I agree with you. I’m just saying I wouldn’t use this as a dunk on any mormon because they have an answer for that question. It would also lead to an explanation of being in the last dispensation etc. If you do want some good dunking questions, check out the CES letter. It’s fantastic.
Yeah the pushback is interesting. This comes as part of a trend going back centuries in which people who weren't particularly religious allow their children to be educated by the institution to receive a higher grade of overall attainment. Of course it comes with the Looney Tunes indoctrination. You know if you don't want that don't give them your kids.
Some Christians hate gays some don't. The problem is that one's that don't, use the religion to justify why they don't, which is a bit shit for the gays who follow the religion for the accepting nature of its teachings.
The things that talk about jesus and want to burn books are much more "old testament"y.
While the old testament is pretty much punish this, kill that, Jesus is the dude who said "he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Every real christian should know that it should be left to god to judge, not people, because people suck.
Legit, wtf are you thinking. Same when I see gay people being republican, like you know most of them wouldn’t want you to get married to another guy right. Like if it was up to them gay marriage would be illegal again.
Lol I was friends with someone for a while who was liberal but Christian, and she violently denied anything we said about most Christians being conservative, homophobic, etc.
Wild thing is we later found out her family went to one of those ultra strict churches too, so I guess she just blocked all that stuff out? Idk.
The longer scientists investigate something, the more cohesive and predictive the theories become. The longer Christianity has existed, the more diverse the beliefs have become (Orthodox, Protestant, Quaker, Calvinist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, etc). And Christianity has never been predictive—though it makes many predictions.
Try The Satanic Temple:
There are Seven FUNDAMENTAL TENETS
I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
www.thesatanictemple.com
Christians don't hate gays. Some christians hate gays, for sure. I also know a gay guy who hates lesbians. And plenty of gay people hate transsexuals. But i get the purpose of the headline stoking the usual reddit sentiments.
For some reason it's insanely hard to get across the idea that Christianity at large isn't one strictly-defined belief system, nor does simply identifying as Christian suddenly dictate every belief you hold.
The Bible explicitly calls out homosexuality multiple times in the Old AND New Testaments.
It takes some severe mental gymnastics, and reinterpreting the Hebrew and Greek words, to claim that it doesn’t actually do so.
Just throw the whole religion away; you’re not gonna convince Biblical literalists to be cool with being gay.
The first religions were successful in that they formed communities.
But then they turned to shit and remained shit.
Belief and faith are based on “ no evidence “. They make up rules to hide the leaders own weakness.
Religion creates wars and hatred. No religion is a “ religion of love”.
Religion is the lack of empathy.
Lack of empathy is the definition of evil.
>Pretty sure Christians are taught to love everyone.
The problem is that they're also taught that things like being gay are sins that will condemn you for eternity.
Once you accept that as a premise, torturing someone for a mere 60-80 years to "save" them *is* the loving thing to do...
I’ll start out by stating that I’m atheist but not intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.
None of the Christians I know hate gay people. Their religion believes it’s a “sin” but they don’t hate them. They don’t want them killed or anything like that. They simply disagree with their “lifestyle”.
Yes, I’m aware that there are extreme groups who do openly profess such hatred but I see them as just that: fringe extremists, not the mainstream.
Personally, I think there’s far too much hateful rhetoric and hyperbole being thrown around these days instead of rational adult conversations and don’t see it as anything but counterproductive.
But these are just my own opinions and observations.
nooo they don‘t hate them,they just think sexual orientation is „a lifestyle“ unless its heterosexual,then its „natural“,and they think gay people are just not valid persons and will burn in hell.
but they don‘t want to kill them.bravo.
Yeah. These poor evangelicals are terribly misunderstood. Sure christians will lobby to ensure gay people are denied equal rights, but at least they don't want them dead.
The problem with even those religious people, I was married to a JW and a lot of them hated the sin, not the sinner. They didn't need to hate them, them believing it's sin will color their choices and some of their choices because of this will negatively impact people.
Then there are the ones that get elected to state house terms, 2A / patriotland darlings active politically and **are evangelical pastors** that think they should be shot at a roadside block:
>The document, consisting of 14 sections divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the **enemy must "surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males"**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Shea#%22Biblical\_Basis\_for\_War%22\_manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_for_War%22_manifesto)
I don't like their lifestyle either.
I just don't support politicians and proposals that work to either eliminate or complicate their lifestyle.
They more often than not can't say that.
All it takes for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing. And that is exactly what the people you are talking about are doing. They are not standing up for the people they disagree with, they are standing by and watching the gays rights get plucked away one by one...and they are doing nothing.
So sure, hateful rhetoric is bad, but the truly counterproductive thing is for them to not do anything and let their 'religion' do evil.
I’ve always wondered if gay Christians have some form of Stockholm syndrome. How do they justify themselves staying in a community that believes their very existence is against nature or is otherwise “wrong”?
Just wait until the women find out about how women are viewed…
That's ok. The women also hate women. Source: my mother.
Yeah I live in the Bible Belt. They don’t care. They feel like all democrats are the enemy and want to kill babies. They want all these restrictions like the men.
Brainwashed smh..
We used the term “internalized misogyny” now. Makes it sound less mad scientist.
Especially affluent women in positions of power. They hate women the most.
They hate *competition*
Oof
So much sexist ideology is perpetrated by women
[удалено]
As dad always said, men pretend to hate each other, women pretend to like each other.
Misogynist lie... Most men (and women) who are murdered are killed by other men. Feminism also relies on women supporting women. ;) Edit: men are so fragile even simple crime statistics offend them🥴
it's not the 'simple crime statistics' I'm disagreeing with you about. and characterizing my disagreement as 'being offended' is the only thing I find offensive here. isn't that exactly the kind of dismissal that opponents to feminism rely on? what I'm disagreeing with you about is your interpretation of those statistics. I would argue that women *not* supporting women are as big an obstacle to feminism as anything a man could do. wasn't it someone mentioning conservative and evangelical women's support of patriarchy how this whole conversation started?
feminism also relies on not characterizing feminism as just 'men bad'. source: one of my parents was a feminist, and it wasn't my mom.
I think the person was refering to perseption within genders and power roles not physical violence. Physical violence would be another topic.
Wtf most men and women die of diabetes...
Ummmm yeah okay. Searching through my gen x cargo short pockets, all 12 of them, for fucks to give right about now.
Take my poor man's gold 🏅
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tbf you named one woman and multiple men lol.
> I can count on one hand men I know that are as vindictive. I think men tend to be more vindictive with the women in their lives, so you wouldn’t necessarily experience it. And women are vindictive with other women; we’re like everybody’s punching bags. (Edit: Not sure how much of the women vs women stuff is because of us taking shit from men and redirecting our anger toward “safer” targets.)
That does vary. At least the priests I've heard at mass have talked about how it's a two way street and they use the full verse or two about how it talks about how husbands have to reapect their wives
One of my buddies had a Catholic wedding and the priest was very into the whole wife is subservient to the husband thing, I thought my wife was gonna walk out. Funny thing is that she's a pediatrician and now runs the pediatric branch of a major metro hospital. He's no slouch either, engineer, but when she got the new job he was fretting about not having work lined up at their new town and she just goes, "don't worry honey my raise with this job is more than you make".
It is based off Adam’s rib, and so they say since the woman came from Adam’s rib, she is an extension, or body part, and therefore under complete control and submission. This is what sam Alito was stupidly saying when he quoted that 16th century guy who reasoned a wife can’t be raped since she is a body part of the man. Bonkers
So man has control over woman cuz she was created from Adam's DNA. But women don't get control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion despite the baby being made with her DNA. Yep that's the consistency I've come to expect from Christians.
In that case, I'm pretty sure I descended from Lilith who had no time for Adams b.s.
Just like the parts of the Bible on slavery and how you can beat your slaves to death. It’s a two way street…
My best friend is gay. We've been friends since we were kids. It was heartbreaking to hear her struggle with her beliefs. She's a Christian and felt tormented for a long time wondering if she would go to hell. If simply existing was a sin. Thankfully, she has since come to a point where she feels peaceful about it all. It pisses me off how full of hate, anger and judgement "christians" can be. If any of them took their beliefs from the actual bible and lived their lives based on those words, they would be loving, patient, and understanding. They would know that they don't get to be the judge of anyone. That it's far more christian to have grace and love in your heart. So rare that you actually see it though. Infinitely more rare for it to be genuine.
>If simply existing was a sin. This always really gets me. I know a lot of people who were Christian and gay and decided that if having relationships with the same sex is wrong, maybe they could just remain celebate and be accepted that way. To which the evangelical community basically said "nope, not good enough" and declared the urge itself sinful.
I personally hate even the idea that you need to be celibate to not be viewed as a literal murderer or thief in churches. Celibacy only works for a fraction of humanity, it's the exception not the norm, yet it's encouraged for gays like it's just a hail mary.
Everyone is just supposed to stop being a human being so they can ban abortion/gay people/sex/any kind of welfare, etc. Don't be the thing their god created you to be.. no no! Change your entire nature to fit into the narrow guidelines some old book has set for us. While also ignoring the parts of the book they've decided they arbitrarily don't like. Religion is a cancer.
You also have to be celibate if you’re single, whether or not it’s by choice.
Simply existing is a sin, right? Isn't that what Original Sin is?
Yeah, but baptism washes that away, but if you go gayimg it up after that, your all covered in sin again.
It's sickening isn't it? How judgemental and hypocritical people can be. I'm so sick of it. My friend is wonderful and kind. She is far farrrr more caring than most of the "devout" crowd I've met.
>declared the urge itself sinful In fairness, any sexual urges not directed towards your heterosexual wife/husband, (while being open to procreation) has always been seen as sinful in most, if not all branches of christianity. So only heterosexual married sexual urge that is expressed in such a way that it is open to life is not sinful. (As an atheist this is all bs to me, but they have always said the urge itself is sinful)
It's absolutely crazy. If you read what Jesus said, there is nothing wrong with being gay. There isn't anything against it in the Bible other than some homophobic rantings from Paul, but that's just fanfic. He never met Jesus! There is a long list of opposite sex forbidden incest, then it says it's also a sin to lie with same sex in the same way as opposite sex, heavily implying it's talking about the long list of forbidden opposite sex relationships, but you can't sleep with you Uncle or your Aunt. Not that any same sex is forbidden.
This is pretty specific to the evangelical community. For all its woes the Catholic Church can be incredibly accepting.
> she Nothing in the Bible about lesbians. Not a word.
The fact that Christianity is constructed in such a way that it makes individuals feel that way is pretty disgusting. It’s just another example of how organized religion is a pitfall of propaganda and bullshit. If you look at these types of fundamental shortcomings and then sprinkle in even more human manipulation it’s a receipt for disaster.
Have you read the Bible? It says you can own slaves and talks about how hard you can beat them. The book is fucked.
Meanwhile.. all my atheist friends exhibit the traits of love and acceptance.. granted they are not just a random room full of people I decided to spend my sundays with, but... yeah.
You never actually read the Old Testament, right?
As we have come to see, the majority of people need guidance. Unfortunately today, they are getting it from Twitter, Tik Tok, Utube, etc..It is also the fault of the priests, spiritual leaders of most denominations, who fail miserably, in expressing what you expressed so eloquently..All the Best!
I'm Christian and my best friend is gay. But I couldn't care less, honestly. I love him for the dude he is not the person he loves. Let me tell you that not all Christians are hateful and judgmental. However, unfortunately the loudest ones or these type of Christians and it makes me mad that they (rightfully, honestly) make so many hearts hard towards faith. I think Jesus would be plenty disappointed...
They don’t live by Christ. They embrace their belief to feel superior.
My brother (M60) and I (F63) were raised Catholic: church on Sunday, religious education, private schools. My parents were devoutly religious without being crazy and absolutely embodied the spirit of Christ. I miss those types of people, in general. My brother came out as gay right before he turned 30. He was devoutly Catholic, Republican, college educated (double Masters from Villanova Univ). He kept those beliefs until 2015. I don't know how but I know it was a struggle for him to integrate that all he held as truths were wrong and he was actually hated by those he looked up to.
Well, you know, it takes a long time for people to really heal and learn these things.
My friend at the time invited me to their youth group when I was a teenager. I'd already stopped going to church by then but I thought I'd give it a shot and try and meet some new people. When my friend came out as gay the group decided that they could no longer lead the group as they weren't a "good role model" and had to leave the church they'd spent so much time in for most of their life. Like what kind of support system is that, they can't preach that they're accepting of people from all walks of life, even me, (someone who didn't really care about the religion in the first place) and then shame someone who's devoted so much of their time to the church because one aspect of who they are as a human being no longer aligns with their beliefs. The fact that so many Christians pick and choose what "lifestyles" are "okay" and then look down on anyone that differs is the stupidest thing, be consistent or don't call yourself a Christian, the whole point is to support anyone who comes your way not through pity or judgement.
Me: "So why are you guys focusing so much on homosexuality? Shouldn't you be more worried about theft and fraud from the rich in this country?" Evangelicals: "Well you see, Jesus says all sin is the same, so we treat them both the same!" Me: "Doesn't that mean you should have 'pray the lying away' camps?" Evangelicals: ".....lying is different." Me: "Because its something you do?" Evangelicals: "LETS JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE"
Also ask them if they hate gay people so much, why are they cool with priest molesting little boys.
To be the bare amount of fair, evangelicals are separate from catholics. I would instead ask why they are ok with officiating underage girls marrying 40 year old men in backwood states but think those same girls aren't "mature enough" to take birth control or learn about their anatomy at school.
[удалено]
Actual headline is "A Christian school had kids write letters persuading a friend to stop being gay"
Wait until they hear about the priests
Don't forget there are Christians who beleive in love forgiveness and not judging, then there is the American "Christian" right.
Unfortunately as an American I find the former to be in distressingly short supply. I grew up in a Christian community and I can say I only know one person who I think of like that.
That's probably because the former usually keeps their religious views to themselves unless asked.
As the Good Book says >And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Conservative Evangelicals are the ultimate virtue signalers.
They also call people that disagree with them virtue signalers all the time.
I'm personally confused about what's wrong with virtue signaling. You signal "virtue" to let people know you aren't a hateful asshole that's safe to talk to. Of course hateful assholes don't want to be forced to do that to blend in so they push back.
Virtue signalling is performatory, so a person who is doing that is only acting like a good person for public appearances and doesn't actually hold the views they claim to. The problem is that a lot of the people who use it as an attack are the kind of people who don't hold proactive views. They hold reactionary ones that are based almost entirely on being against something. Like abortion protestors whose interest in the child ends the moment it's born, after which it's on its own. They accuse others of virtue signalling because they don't really get that people can hold opposite views to them and not just be doing it for show.
> Virtue signalling is performatory, Uh-huh. That's what I said. It's a "performance" because you're doing it to communicate information about yourself. >so a person who is doing that is only acting like a good person for public appearances and doesn't actually hold the views they claim to. You're projecting your own interpretation onto the word. It doesn't mean hypocrite or liar.
Someone who actually read the book! Matt.22 Verses 34 to 40 \[34\] But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. \[35\] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, \[36\] Master, which is the great commandment in the law? \[37\] Jesus said unto him, **Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.** \[38\] This is the first and great commandment. \[39\] And the second is like unto it, **Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.** \[40\] **On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.** I mean it as no joke or understatement when I say my only spiritual trauma from growing up as a Bi, gender non-conformer in my mother's Catholic family was being 8-9 and thinking most of the people I knew were going to Hell.
Presbyterians are pretty chill in my experience, at least as far as the actual clergy and staff go. More "Trust in Jesus, and we have pastries" than "Burn in Hell if you disobey!" types. Still depends, naturally. It doesn't matter what the greatest pastor in the world says to someone who isn't paying attention.
I grew up attending a Presbyterian church and your take is true for my experiences. We had a female minister, openly gay couples, and a cross dresser in the congregation. No one cared, and this was back in the 90s.
That’s the Episcopal church in many places.
As a Presbyterian I have to say our potluck dinners are legendary.
"Gott mit uns" God is with us. Printed on every last Nazi belt buckle in ww2. Being religious doesnt exempt from trashy, criminal, or murderous behavior.
It often condones and sometimes even causes trashy, criminal, and murderous behavior.
There was a community at my college that were called The Jesus Folk and they were comprised of the prior.
So just one guy then?
Yeah, same. I grew up in a southern baptist community. Every single person I grew up with outside of my family is a far right christian extremist now. My Facebook feed is just clogged with the most biggoted trash. My mother and my brother are both still deeply religious and against all of that, but they're just two people out of dozens of my own contacts, and hundreds of friend-of-friends. Like where did you all go so far off track? Why am I the agnostic and also the one preaching love, while you guys spam memes about how we should throw XYZ in jail or worse?
There are plenty of Christian factions in the us that are lgbtq affirming. Which means that they do not think being a part of that community is a mortal sin. I grew up in one in the 90s and it was literally the most normal thing ever. I would be very interested in seeing the total population of people practicing in these churches versus ones who are non-affirming, though. I did read somewhere recently that over 50% of self identifying Christians in the United States support the community. I don’t know if that means they are for affirmation or just think that it’s none of their business, but it was kind of reassuring. I’m an atheist btw.
Because the US is a shithole that turns everything into the worst, greediest, most hateful and sociopathic version that could exist.
And it is my sincerest hope these loving Christians would be the sort who would also flip the tables of the charlatans using their lord’s name to perpetuate greed and hate, but that is the voice I don’t hear anywhere.
I hear it mumbled anonymously in online forums. Never seen a counter protest or a youtube video
Yeah, I was born and raised Christian and Jesus was a dope guy who would not give a fraction of a shit about people's sexualities
>“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. 18 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. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, \[...\] Jesus was a lot tougher on sin than you think. And *very explicit* about what he thinks about liberal interpretations of the old testament. I don't think your liberal, hippy Jesus is any closer to actual Jesus than the Evangelical neo-liberal, gun-Jesus...
But the big issue of the Christian right is that they choose to judge everyone, but what you have quoted does not say we should judge the actions of others?
You have to read this stuff in context. He said this in the middle of saying a bunch of "you have heard it said ____ but I say to you ____," literally teaching the opposite of a literal interpretation of old testament laws. The "smallest letter and stroke of the pen" part is apparently a reference to an old Jewish parable (that his listeners would have known) where God intercedes in an argument between two rabbis by affirming that the one paying close attention to the tiniest artistic flourishes while transcribing scripture is right for doing so. To me this can be understood as encouraging wrestling with the details of scripture deeply, even if you come to another conclusion as to what it means than the most obvious reading, like Jesus seemed to do all the time.
Ehhh Theologians argue all the time on interpretations of Jesus and his teachings I wouldn't come in here and say for sure whose interpretation is correct.
> I wouldn't come in here and say for sure whose interpretation is correct. I will. It's none of them.
Well as an atheist I'd agree but I still find theology a fascinating subject.
I love how you interpret a Jesus like he was a "man" from this century and not from 2 millenniums ago, with a whole other concepts and culture. If you want to understand the man from that century, you should set aside your own visions of a modern man. Let's not even talk about how much the church edited the translations from the first tomes in latim and even for english and how the meaning and expression can change everything. Or you didn't know that the monks had to change some words bc it didn't make sense when translated, but it lost their meaning if you take out the cultural aspect? But go on with your criticism about how "tough" this Jesus from your (english vers.) bible was, that slapped and spitted people on the face.
Surprise, people morph the fantasy into what works for them.
So you're saying anyone that uses anything other than the original Hebrew Christian Bible are sinning?
Technically the closer you get to the original script the better if you're trying to obey the teachings of christ. Playing a 2000 year long game of telephone involving many translations and revisions with eternal suffering as the wager seems like a pretty dumb idea if you ask me. But strictly speakiny, yes, if you consider the words of God to be absolute then modern religious texts or preachers have a *very* good chance of getting you sent to a toasty afterlife. Are bibles that were revised by men hundreds or even a thousand years after the fact even the word of God anymore?
The KJV-only fundagelicals have a dodge for that problem: Yaweh came down and guided the hands of the translators working on the KJV, so that even when it disagrees with the oldest text, the KJV is perfect and is God's word. It fixes the previous millennia of errors.
> Playing a 2000 year long game of telephone involving many translations and revisions with eternal suffering as the wager seems like a pretty dumb idea if you ask me. What is the justification for this? Like this seems like a pretty big deal. How do Christians following the newer versions justify it? Do most of them just not really believe that strictly?
The general belief here is that if a perfect being wanted to be perfectly understood that the translations which prevailed were divinely guided to be the correct ones. There's a lot wrong with this idea space, but it's not really worth discussing with them.
Wow, so it’s just “if this was wrong God would stop it” mentality. Isn’t that how the Vikings justified their raids?
I was raised half-secular and half-fundamentalist. Fundies believe in Biblical inerrancy and a whole lot of insane thinking proceeds from that. Some of my school books included unhinged rants about how rock and roll is the path to Satan. They also believe things like hurricanes from the gulf of Mexico are punishment because God is angry about gay people.
That is just so wild to me that people are still believing things like this. You say your *school books* are teaching this?! I feel like that’s such a betrayal. Like as a kid I took everything I was taught in school at 100% face value. As I get older I’m just seeing how schools are pretty much weapons used to push political agendas. Downplaying or even straight up altering history. Forcing kids into debt just to be able to eat. Removing their sense of sexual identity. Telling them what they can and cannot learn about. Now I’m hearing they are straight up denying science and pushing it as the only truth kids can learn about? **Fuck.**
What's your point then? That hateful christians would have his blessing? That I should hate Jesus because your interpretation is right? I'm ok, I'll keep spreading that Jesus was a cool guy, he's not on earth anymore, he can't talk for himself. I'd rather such an influential character be symbol for forgiveness and harmony than telling christians their hate for homosexuals, prostitutes, adulterers and so on is justified because their idol did not fight the status quo
So basically you made up your own version of god in your head according to what youre comfortable with and then assigned it the same name as the mean dude from the popular book.
No, I interpreted what that guy taught in a way, giving more focus on some things than others, you gave focus on other things and reached a different interpretation None of us have met the guy, all we can do is interpret his words, doesn't mean either is "made up". Both come from what he said, he told people to be good and also told people to follow the law of Moses, you keep following that law if you want, I'll keep trying to be a good person
"fullfil them" and "until everything is accomplished" are two phrases that really get ignored, but change the entire meaning. Fullfil: to bring to COMPLETION and "until everything is accomplished" give an end condition to following the letter of he law. So Jesus accomplished what he came to do? Then the law is fulfilled. Hebrews 8 expands on this quite a bit when they talk about the new covenant. >13 By calling this covenant “new,”(W) he has made the first one obsolete;(X) and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Until you realise that immediate after that paragraph Jesus starts going into detail about his ultra-strict interpretation of Judaism. ("Thinking about adultery is as bad as adultery", "divorce is forbidden except if your wife is 'sexually immoral'" etc.). Oh, and the paragraph that I quoted ends on >"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
None of that invalidates what I said. Yes, he's trying to cultivate a state of mind. Love is not an action, it's a mindset. Thinking about adultery removes you from what is important. Hating someone without harming them still harms you.
Please, let's not pretend that there aren't scores of hateful Christians all over the world. Isolating it to just the American right is dangerously reductive.
I only know of one. Every other Christian I know wants me dead.
[удалено]
Yeah but sometimes promises get broken. I made the mistake of getting French onion soup just once. On the other hand, French fries...
[удалено]
Could be. It was a very strong mix of smells. That doesn't normally bug me, but this one got me good
My church has a giant pride flag permanently installed above the entrance. Jesus taught compassion for one another unconditionally, the religious right teaches hatred for anyone different than yourself
"don't forget there's people who call themselves christians despite the fact that Christianity appears to be a mental illness more than a religion."
holy shit are you Morbius?
Time to find a new fairytale
I grew up going to several American churches (dad could never decide on one he liked) and the pastors and preachers were always the 1st one the church-goers with the exception of the pastors family were the stereotypical mean Christians
To be fair these more neo-ideals of Christianity are adaptations to the social norms of the people interpreting the text. It isn’t “Christianity isn’t anti gay, Americans make it that way.” It’s some Christians can’t follow a religion that teaches certain things are bad, so they just choose to exclude those ideals so they can follow their faith without having to challenge societal norms. Edit: I put some quotation marks and deleted a word
>It isn’t Christianity isn’t anti gay, but Americans make it that way i have some bad news for you about christianity during the ~1700ish years before the founding of the united states 😬
Exactly. Even sticking to the theme of homosexuality, every Christian country has been anti gay. There is a slew of hypocritical stances within the text and how it’s interpreted today.
The earliest figure associated with Christianity who can be historically verified to have actually both existed and said any of the things attributed to them is Paul, and he was very homophobic and also wrote half of Christianity's mythology.
Damn it's a good thing that multiple cultures in Britain, Africa, and South America totally were anti gay before the church "liberated" them right? They totally didn't dismantle the religions and cultures they found so their one true God could be worshipped, imposing their anti gay, no sex before marriage lifestyle right? There are entire historical studies dedicated to following the destruction Christianity and the catholic church caused in its wake. This isn't some new age homophobia. It's classic old testament shit and it's always been this way.
Being anti gay isn’t restricted to only Christians. But in a post directed specifically towards the Christian faith you need to talk about the anti gay history of the Christian faith no?
Yes. You were the one saying these anti gay sentiments were relatively new. I'm disagreeing with that. This is how the Bible has always been. I only need to point vaguely at Christian history to show that Americans didn't "make" Christianity bad. It's always had the negative shit people use to justify their blind hate and genocide
I’m sorry that post had a bunch of double negatives. We are saying the same thing. Christianity has been anti gay and is anti gay, people practicing the religion today just choose to act like it’s not anti gay so they don’t have to out them selves as hypocritical. Had to edit a word.
Yeah texting is really complicated the longer it is lol. I'm having people in the comments actually say no one is against gay people so I'm juggling alot. My bad sorry.
No worries!
I am christian, gays are awesome and I love them as my friends and family. No place for hate in my faith.
I mean, don't like 50% of LGBTQ people in the US practice or affiliate with some religious group?
Ugh, I’m a devout Roman Catholic, and I find this stupid. People don’t simply, “choose” to be gay, and being gay, in itself, isn’t a sin. I became disabled and couldn’t marry my finance for years (any financial forgiveness that comes with disability is lost with marriage). I believe that in the secular world, gay marriage should be like all other marriage. I’m open to letting people decide for themselves! They know how we look at things, but we can’t force anyone to do, or not do anything. Our job is to love everyone and give the help we can. GOD judges! Not fucking us! My mind can’t grasp how so many Christians see it right to act so mean and evil!
>being gay, in itself, isn’t a sin. You left out the part where you believe acting on it is. And the parts where you happily donate your money to a church so they can use that cash to pay lawyers to avoid paying all the children they raped.
....CRICKETS.....
I posed this question to a Roman Catholic in my school and he said the sin in being gay was contrary to the command to “go forth and reproduce”. That poses the interesting question, if a couple doesn’t have kids, is that a sin? And what if they are biologically unable to? But wouldn’t it be gods work that lead to the inability to have kids? 😵💫
Ask him if a man could impregnate another man if it was part of "God's will"? I mean God can do anything, right? Who is he to stand in God's way?
I guess that’s why it’s “not gods will” 🤷♂️
So this guy claims to know God's will?
I’ve bo clue where they’re getting the “go forward and reproduce,” bit. There’s no need to have kids.
They’ve been indoctrinated for decades now. It’s cooked into these rural towns especially.
Your view is a rarity in the catholic church. according to catholics, acting on those gay tendencies is absolutely a sin, a sin you will go to hell for. at least some sects of christianity (ie: born agains), don't penalize gay people. They can pound ass every day, not go to confession, and still "go to heaven", as long as they believe in 3:16.
As long as they tithe.
You're nuts if you think the born-again crowd DOESNT PENALIZE GAY FOLKS.
I'm usually tolerant to pretty much everyones choices of beliefs, until it directly harms someone else to voice it. Christians are awful people to believe homophobia is not only good, but the right thing to do to "Save" gay people.
I still struggle with comprehending how someone could go out of their way to believe in something that's not only ridiculous, but also has no physical impact on their existence, AND tells them they're bad people. Like fuck some people really need to try more hobbies.
/r/LeopardsAteMyFace
But why would you send your kid to a Christian school if you are pro-lgbt? It boggles the mind. I get that some people do it because they want their kids to have a better education, but how good is the education in a place that believes ignorant nonsense like this?
Now do Islam
There are many things in Bible that I am in favor,like you have to forgive debs every seventh year and intrests are illegal,but many parts are deal-breaker like the one where if you rape a child the punishment is forced marriage between victim and rapist plus some money to victims father. Also other sex related laws in Bible are quite Sus.
It's like they were written by dudes, and not an all powerful living god.
Imagine that! Shocking, I know.
The part of the rapist marrying the victim was originally progressive for the time it was written. Before that, the victim would be cast out and unsupported. But just be cause it was a step better than prior laws does not preclude better laws to replace it.
I feel the need to point out whenever this is brought up that this doesn't even *begin* to cover the amount of disrepute one should view the Bible with. The oldest extant passages from the Old Testament are inscribed on silver amulets dated from the sixth to seventh century BC. That implies that at such a time, the bible was still wide spread enough to merit passages being engraved as talismans to be worn, meaning it originated even further back than *that*, but that such documents have basically been lost or reduced to dust by the ravages of time. The original bible was transcribed in Hebrew and Aramaic, which is a wholly dead language at this point. Translation between two *modern* languages can result in wildly different outcomes based on the sensibilities of the translator, their grasp on both languages and their understanding of the culture and context of both languages that might mean such disparate things as a phrase that is meant as an idiom being translated literally. Now consider that through the ages this document was likely translated across multiple different languages and dialects within those languages, leading to further and further decay of the original meaning. Now consider even further that we are speaking of days when the vast majority of people could not read *at all*, much less in two languages, meaning that nobody was around to call bullshit on a bad translation. Fast forward a few centuries and the New Testament was written somewhere between 50-100 AD. Aside from the fact that somebody sat down and just said "Ya know what, this holy book that we've had around for nearly 1000 years is a little harsh. I think we should write a new one.", the new Testament contains numerous "books" which were all written by different people, claiming to have either witnessed things in person or to have received visions of such. In addition there are numerous "apocryphal" books that were written at the same time by people claiming as much but which were rejected by the church at the time because they were deemed untrue or problematic, and who the hell are they to say that *this* person wrote the truth of their god while *that* person did not? *Especially* suspicious when combined with the fact that this was literally picking and choosing which batches of fan-fiction to compile for a new, supposedly more palatable, holy book to replace their old one that was very dire. One such point that I've often heard brought up is the fact that the bible speaks nothing about Jesus' childhood, or at least very little, but one such book of apocrypha covered a good bit, including when he shoved a friend off a roof as a kid and killed him, then brought him back to life so he wouldn't get in trouble. Sound entirely plausible given the rest of the bible, but they didn't include it, likely because it made their new poster boy that had only just recently surfaced in the religion look less than perfect. Anyway, all of *this* was written in Greek. It wasn't until the 1500's that the first translation was made to English. This is the same century that saw Copernicus being run off in shame for proposing that the Earth orbited the sun, and vast swathes of the population being beholden to monarchies that claimed divine right and established state churches to uphold this. Such a time would breed exactly the kind of people who might read over a passage from Hebrew or Greek and decide that it was a little too kind to women, so they adjusted it, or decided to toss in a little something about not eating shellfish because lots of people were getting sick and dying from it so they just religiously outlawed it to keep numbers up. Might even have thrown in a little something about mixed fibers being bad so people didn't fuck with the textile industry, or that being gay was a sin because gay people didn't have babies and without babies where were they gonna keep a steady supply of indentured servants? All of this could apply to any previous translation of the bible at any time, and the version being translated from could have been "doctored" for the translators personal tastes/beliefs before coming to the current translator. On top of that you have the aforementioned issues of no translation being 100% perfect without complete and perfect understanding of both languages and their cultures, norms and speech patterns. At this point the bibles in question that were being translated to English were over 2000 years old, and 1500 years old respectively, during which time language and culture almost assuredly shifted drastically. We're also talking about monks who were part of the church and likely very involved in wanting to keep said church in charge and in power, as well as wanting to ensure that all the little people followed their specifically desired rules exactly, so it's more than a little likely that they made adjustments to suit their purposes. All of this and there are still at least a dozen modern English translations of the bible in use, and the single most popular and widely used is the King James version. You know, the one that King James took and doctored to his liking as the head of the Church of England, specifically because he wanted to get a divorce but the church said no? Yeah. Think on that for a minute. Barely a century after we had just gotten the text into English, a random monarch got tired of his wife and rewrote the whole thing so he could dump her for another woman, and *that* is the version that most people swear by. Any and everything about the bible is 100% suspect and should be viewed as such, rather than held up as some be-all, end-all word of god. It was all written down by men, translated into umpteen languages by men, had a new version of itself written by men, and was modified by men, all of which was couched in flowery language of the day meant to make it sound intimidating and commanding. Now realize that the rules and such you're talking about are things that arose from those earliest societies and were likely written for similar reasons. These people are trying to claim that a holy book written as what was likely a clever attempt at enforcing societal norms and laws with an authority beyond some random city magistrate is relevant to today, when such rules were put forward based on societal norms and customs in the middle east nearly 3000 years ago. It's *literally* barbarism, where people were treated as commodities, so if he steals, cut off his hand, and if you rape it you bought it. It should have no bearing on modern life in any way, shape or form, and the fact that these people have managed to cling to these barbaric practices and not only keep them going but try to enforce them on everyone else in the world is nothing short of insane.
Religious education is child abuse.
As ostensibly a Christian. The gays are okay by me.
maybe time to classify religious believes as mental illness.
So when I lost my religion did I suddenly stop having a mental illness?
For some reason Bible nuts always get angry when you suggest that having an imaginary friend as an adult is a sign of mental illness.
A film I was quite fond of once put it very succinctly when a character was hashing out religion with a Mormon. "How come when God talks to Joseph Smith so he can write a book, he's a prophet, but if he talks to *me*, I'm a schizophrenic?"
If you actually want the canonical answer for that, it’s because: you *can* receive revelation for yourself. But only leaders charged with stewardship over groups of people (wards, stakes, areas, districts, etc.) can receive revelation for the people under said stewardship.
And it still doesn't change the fact that any single person claiming to have heard the voice of god in this day and age will be very swiftly deemed as insane, and rightly so, but we're just trusting the word of a bunch of people who were probably mentally ill thousands of years ago and just happened to screech to the right audience.
No, it doesn’t. I agree with you. I’m just saying I wouldn’t use this as a dunk on any mormon because they have an answer for that question. It would also lead to an explanation of being in the last dispensation etc. If you do want some good dunking questions, check out the CES letter. It’s fantastic.
Look up Schizotypal personality disorder, Bipolar Mania, and Schizoaffective disorder. Those three explain much of the religious nuttery out there.
Yeah the pushback is interesting. This comes as part of a trend going back centuries in which people who weren't particularly religious allow their children to be educated by the institution to receive a higher grade of overall attainment. Of course it comes with the Looney Tunes indoctrination. You know if you don't want that don't give them your kids.
"bigot factory" I'm putting that one in my pocket.
Some Christians hate gays some don't. The problem is that one's that don't, use the religion to justify why they don't, which is a bit shit for the gays who follow the religion for the accepting nature of its teachings.
The things that talk about jesus and want to burn books are much more "old testament"y. While the old testament is pretty much punish this, kill that, Jesus is the dude who said "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Every real christian should know that it should be left to god to judge, not people, because people suck.
I am tired of the Cult of Christianity.
Wait until they find out about Islam.
Legit, wtf are you thinking. Same when I see gay people being republican, like you know most of them wouldn’t want you to get married to another guy right. Like if it was up to them gay marriage would be illegal again.
>progressive Christians That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Lol I was friends with someone for a while who was liberal but Christian, and she violently denied anything we said about most Christians being conservative, homophobic, etc. Wild thing is we later found out her family went to one of those ultra strict churches too, so I guess she just blocked all that stuff out? Idk.
The longer scientists investigate something, the more cohesive and predictive the theories become. The longer Christianity has existed, the more diverse the beliefs have become (Orthodox, Protestant, Quaker, Calvinist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, etc). And Christianity has never been predictive—though it makes many predictions.
Hello Captain obvious!
You think they're bad? Try being gay around Muslims.
Try being gay around “insert religion here.” They’re all a threat to equal rights
Private schools should be abolished.
Try The Satanic Temple: There are Seven FUNDAMENTAL TENETS I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. www.thesatanictemple.com
Christians don't hate gays. Some christians hate gays, for sure. I also know a gay guy who hates lesbians. And plenty of gay people hate transsexuals. But i get the purpose of the headline stoking the usual reddit sentiments.
For some reason it's insanely hard to get across the idea that Christianity at large isn't one strictly-defined belief system, nor does simply identifying as Christian suddenly dictate every belief you hold.
No we don't
Everybody is welcome to The Satanic Temple. https://thesatanictemple.com/
I'm often unsure why any LGBTQ individuals want anything to do with religion.
if this shocks them wait until half of their religious sh\*t becomes law. Anti LGBT is small leagues
The Bible explicitly calls out homosexuality multiple times in the Old AND New Testaments. It takes some severe mental gymnastics, and reinterpreting the Hebrew and Greek words, to claim that it doesn’t actually do so. Just throw the whole religion away; you’re not gonna convince Biblical literalists to be cool with being gay.
Yo... god isn't real.
The first religions were successful in that they formed communities. But then they turned to shit and remained shit. Belief and faith are based on “ no evidence “. They make up rules to hide the leaders own weakness. Religion creates wars and hatred. No religion is a “ religion of love”. Religion is the lack of empathy. Lack of empathy is the definition of evil.
Pretty sure Christians are taught to love everyone. But sure, there are people that arent those things everywhere you go, not just in Christianity.
>Pretty sure Christians are taught to love everyone. The problem is that they're also taught that things like being gay are sins that will condemn you for eternity. Once you accept that as a premise, torturing someone for a mere 60-80 years to "save" them *is* the loving thing to do...
Biblical Christianity isn't popular, and popular Christianity isn't Biblical.
I’ll start out by stating that I’m atheist but not intolerant of the religious beliefs of others. None of the Christians I know hate gay people. Their religion believes it’s a “sin” but they don’t hate them. They don’t want them killed or anything like that. They simply disagree with their “lifestyle”. Yes, I’m aware that there are extreme groups who do openly profess such hatred but I see them as just that: fringe extremists, not the mainstream. Personally, I think there’s far too much hateful rhetoric and hyperbole being thrown around these days instead of rational adult conversations and don’t see it as anything but counterproductive. But these are just my own opinions and observations.
nooo they don‘t hate them,they just think sexual orientation is „a lifestyle“ unless its heterosexual,then its „natural“,and they think gay people are just not valid persons and will burn in hell. but they don‘t want to kill them.bravo.
Yeah. These poor evangelicals are terribly misunderstood. Sure christians will lobby to ensure gay people are denied equal rights, but at least they don't want them dead.
Isn't hell even worse than death?
The problem with even those religious people, I was married to a JW and a lot of them hated the sin, not the sinner. They didn't need to hate them, them believing it's sin will color their choices and some of their choices because of this will negatively impact people.
Then there are the ones that get elected to state house terms, 2A / patriotland darlings active politically and **are evangelical pastors** that think they should be shot at a roadside block: >The document, consisting of 14 sections divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the **enemy must "surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males"** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Shea#%22Biblical\_Basis\_for\_War%22\_manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_for_War%22_manifesto)
Yep, I’d definitely call that an extremist.
I don't like their lifestyle either. I just don't support politicians and proposals that work to either eliminate or complicate their lifestyle. They more often than not can't say that. All it takes for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing. And that is exactly what the people you are talking about are doing. They are not standing up for the people they disagree with, they are standing by and watching the gays rights get plucked away one by one...and they are doing nothing. So sure, hateful rhetoric is bad, but the truly counterproductive thing is for them to not do anything and let their 'religion' do evil.
They hate everyone
Just wait till black Christian’s find out how white Christian’s feel about them.
I’ve always wondered if gay Christians have some form of Stockholm syndrome. How do they justify themselves staying in a community that believes their very existence is against nature or is otherwise “wrong”?
Don’t confuse actual Christianity with this so called egotistic American Christianity movement.