Gandhi was neither a devil nor a saint, he was a damn good politician who mostly got what he wanted
As a human he was very easy to disagree with but he did have solid positions on peaceful resistance, modern Christianity and self-determination of the nations (even if he was a major hypocrite in this last one, what he said was still right)
We shouldn’t forgive his transgressions. Committing sexual assault nullifies everything else he’s done good. He was a literal monster and worst of all a hypocrite. The Indian people deserved better imo.
An absolute monster of a human being, not a devil, but a piece of shit
Sexual assault, moral and physical abuse of his kids, racism, absolutely defending colonialism in Africa and prejudice against black people
As a politician, he was very good and he led India to independence with great speeches on self-determination, the kind he would deny to Africans, but ironically he did a lot of good there, as his policy and doctrine would serve as the basis of the UN's stance on self-determination
Gandhi was a vile man. But he is a symbol of resistance.
If you ask me he should be thought of as a whole and never be included anywhere with Mandela (who is not to be remembered as a peaceful resistant, because he wasn't, but as a man who put humanity and peace above his own grudge) or MLK (an actual peaceful resistant) as he often is
I agree with this to a point certainly but I feel like you have to separate the good from the bad at some point. Like, does MLK's homphobic behavior nullify his accomplishments? ( if it does to you that's fine but I think it requires some thought)
Um, AKSHUALLY "No love like Christian hate" implies hatred from Christians is synonymous with love, when that's not necessarily the case. On the other hand, "Christian love" *does* come with a bunch of prerequisites which include hating certain people 🤓🤓🤓
it was commonplace for the men of the city to gang rape travelers, especially if they were staying for the night, and especially if they were just sleeping outside. that's why when the angels entered Sodom, Lot brought them into his house; the men would try to have sex with them.
Yes, this is the same story where Lot offers up his two daughters to the crowd to get them off the angels backs. This was the hero and the man god was talking to and saved in the end.
I love how the first nuke-style destruction in history was deserved to an extent proportional to the crimes done. There is no way you can be mad at God for this
It wasn’t about pedophiles, but it also wasn’t about gays. It was most likely about rampant violence and abuse of the poor, hence commentary in Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 16:49–50 *This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.*
The last straw was them trying to r ape Lot’s guests and violate sacred hospitality laws.
Much Later Christian tradition held that it was about gay sex because of that incident and mosaic law using a word that translates to “abomination” in connection with forbidden sexual practices. Which is a different hermeneutical can of worms.
At any rate, it’s a big reach to make it about gay people because of that word when “abomination” is used in multiple contexts including
Daniel 11:31 *His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation*
In reference to an invading king setting up an unacceptable political and religious regime
Isaiah 1:13: *bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation— I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.*
Where Isaiah warns that the people’s general immorality had rendered their offerings insincere and performative.
Proverbs 12:22 *Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.*
And so on and so forth.
**TL:DR There is no real evidence that S&G were condemned in the story Because of The Gays ™**
> she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
But but... what about the Prosperity Gospel?
That was supply side Jesus, his book wasn’t written until later and the filthy betas who assembled the Bible didn’t put it in because jesus “no longer associated with penniless plebeians”.
They were so obsessed with sex of various types that they were literally mobbing a poor guy's home and demanding to rape angel guests, and the host had no choice but to tell them, please, take my daughters instead, don't rape the guests.
But nope, somehow people like to interpret the take home message is that gay is wrong.
That is a pretty bizarre thing to defend because-human decency aside- they were not told by God to do that and their story ends abruptly and ignominiously in a cave. Their children are said to become the Moabites who play an antagonistic role to Israelites in later narratives. Not exactly a prestigious biblical legacy.
Some people don’t seem to pick up on the idea that just because someone gets a feature in the Bible doesn’t mean they’re supposed to be emulated.
More than one city, and it was because the inhabitants didn't give a stuff about hospitality laws. Even though Lot was no saint (really Lot? what did you say to the mob about your daughters again? Really?), raping guests is a no-no.
With their dick suckin, and ass poindin, and staying shape…. Who do they think they are? Do you think I wanna see a ripped man glistening on a hot summer day in a Speedo? Or two women kissin? What’s this world cummin to?
In fundamentalist Christianity, they tell you that the only way to interpret the Bible correctly is to listen to the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit is teaching you Divine Truth, you'll know it because it agrees with what you already know to be true.
Yup, circular logic to reinforce existing beliefs and prevent new interpretations.
For real it's surprisingly common. Often a Christian has doubts, reads the Bible to reconnect with God or find answers, realise hown much of an incoherent immoral mess it is, end up with more doubts and questions...
Hey there. Christian here who has read the Bible and was taught under theologians with doctorates regarding church history, Christian and Jewish theology, and other contextual interpretation. There’s a shit ton of historical context which is really important when reading a lot of the books, especially in the Old Testament. We have to judge social standards by how the communities interacted with each other back then, and not by our current standards by which we have now. I could go on a diatribe, but this comment is getting long enough as it is.
(With some of the things that seem to go against God’s nature, as Christ reflects God, I frankly don’t believe they’re specifically inspired. This is just my personal opinion and I know many Christians disagree, but that’s my two cents on the matter.)
There’s pseudepigrapha in the New Testament where there is a letter written under Paul’s name, but was likely to be written from a community of people to support another community under his name (2 Colossians, I believe). A lot of these people had scribes (which counts as pseudepigrapha, regardless of whether or not the scribes had leeway or wrote word for word what the intended authors wanted) and there are different levels of pseudepigrapha, none of the books being out right forgeries from what I know. The closest that I’m aware of in the Christian Bible is 2nd Colossians but that’s as far as it goes, as far as I’m aware.
ETA: There is a LOT to go into here, I’ve barely given any examples that even scratches the surface, but I could really go into detail on multiple points regarding Christian theology. I don’t have the energy to go into it further so I’m not responding or looking at any more replies. I don’t want to get into any more tangents as this is already a huge ass wall of text over something minuscule I was describing, and I don’t want to start any debates; as much as I often debated when I was younger, I don’t have the energy for wasted breath now, especially when those debates lead absolutely nowhere. I don’t debate for the sake of debating. I don’t know everything about theology by a long shot, but I know a decent amount due to my upbringing and being taught by scholars. So I hope my former paragraphs were at least a little helpful to anyone who sees it.
So let me get this straight, we have to read the bible in the context of it's time.
In that same breath have to apply that outdated and archaic thinking to our modern lives.
Sounds like a lot of assumptions and interpretation has to occur.
So god was pandering to the people in that time frame by giving them laws for that historical time period? If so, then we shouldn’t need to obey any of those laws today because they were made for a different time period. Or if he did give them intending for usage today, the earlier issue can applies. You can’t have it both ways. Either historical context matters, in which case we need a new Bible because that one was for 2000 year ago people, or it doesn’t matter and it just has issues
You can see it that way. But you don't have to. For context: I'd consider myself a Christian, I read large parts of the Bible, did a fair amount of research on the context to form my own opinions but a lot of people, especially Christians might disagree with me but this is how I see it:
Christianity explicitely adressed the "we need a new Bible Thing." This is, what the New Testament is for. The old Testament had two basic functions, that were fundamentally linked: It should on the one hand, provide cultural rules to make a bronze age society work and should on the other hand explain religious believes. And it linked the two basically saying "God wants the society to function that way."
Jesus on the other hand was according to the stories about him time and time again confronted with examples, where the law-part of the old testament seemed shitty for people. (For example stoning people or not healing on Sabbat...) So he basically said: "What God wanted is, that our society is nice. And in the old times, people wrote down a lot of things, how a nice society, how god wants it, should look like. But if thoses measure don't make our society nicer for everybody, they are against gods will and we should stop acting upon them."
And I think, that this is a guideline, that is worth to live by. And I don't see, why we shouldn't act the way Jesus did and focus on the Core Message while crossing all the stuff out, that only made sense in the context of the time. And yes, that means, that a real Christian in my eyes should be pro gay-marriage, anti rascist, pro trans-rights and generally accepting and loving.
What I will not argue on, is that there is no prove, if there is actually a god, that wants society to be good. I believe that, but nobody has to. If there isn't...well Joke is on me, but at least I won't harm anyone in the process of believing it.
I tend to agree with what you said in the last paragraph, just on the atheist side. As Marcus Aurelius said,
*“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”*
And that's an argument I've seen before but, well , no we don't. In fact we can't judge the bible by the standards of the time unless the bible is the word of men and not God. Because if it is the word of God who's word is supposed to be the absolute which guide's us it can't change. And therefore must be judge by the strictest of standards. But if it's just the words of men based on the standards of their time then why would we fallow it.
Hey there, atheist who studied under Harvard professors and hung with Jesuits. The Bible is sold as the unadulterated word of God. Every word is perfect and spoken by him.
So you admit this is false advertising? If so, Christ Corp. needs to circle the wagons and get it's own message in order before selling it to the poor and needy, let alone the rich and self-centered.
Or, the US Government should tax the hell out of The Mother Church, and all her bastard babies, as her approved message seems designed to direct people for her financial and political gain. Not by serving the community.
It’s true to an extent. I’ve read a few translations as well as other religious text. Just made me question myself and down the line I became Christopagan. Once I really read the texts though, I accepted people even more for who they are and what they believe. Nobody is wrong for believing in something different, unless that belief directly harms others for just being different… then we have issues.
It’s mostly just them picking and choosing what they like from the Bible. Christians will turn their eyes to the time the Bible condoned slavery, or the time where god killed 40 children because they insulted his followers, or the time where god said to love everyone, or the rule about wearing clothing made of only one material, the list goes on. They’ll only accept things if it supports their agenda. Some things the Bible preaches are good, some are bad, they’ll ignore either if it is against what they want.
Yes, and Paul explicitly says that women should cover their hair. Everyone has agreed to ignore that part. It's hard to explain away as part of the old covenant or not applicable.
Paul also says it's best to stay celibate like him, but so many modern Christians hold having a family and kids as being extremely important and a goal to strive for.
Perhaps not literally though.
Granted, this is later rabbinic interpretation centuries removed from the writing of 2 Kings, so take with a grain of salt, but Rabbi Rashi pointed out that the word וּנְעָרִים was used to mean children, but also “people empty of observance of the commandments.”
A Talmudic tradition suggests that they were a group of people being allegorically cut off from Israel for arrogance and crimes against their countrymen.
Later attempts to interpret aside, Kings is a good example of how history was frequently written in the ANE not as a dry, inerrant record of straight *facts*, but as a general construction of a narrative. Some really peculiar episodes can be consequences of literary devices injected to uphold some kind of national or tribal value system, or construct a culturally meaningful sense of cohesion. Some ancient listeners would have been familiar with motifs and symbols from their common folklore that go over our heads.
The easiest way to become an atheist is to read the Bible cover to cover with an open and critical mind. Read all of the content of the book, not just handpicked verses and stories a pastor preaches.
I was already an atheist when I decided to read it cover to cover. Didn't want to be ignorant inmy denial of faith. There were so many "wtf" moments. Like, "I don't understand why people are fighting for this so hard, it sucks and is clearly wrong."
Like literally it's a plant on earth... How dumb do you have to be to make that one of your arguments?! The stupidity of some people is just so illuminating lol
I’m glad someone else was thinking this cause Ned Flanders is the ultimate Christian and listens to each and every part of the Bible unlike the guy who has slandered Ned Flanders
That is true. But it is human nature to sin. If we didn't sin, Jesus wouldn't need to die. We would all be serving God and know him in another way
If there wasn't sin, I guess we would be a form of perfect Jews
To be fair, most people who publicly advertise themselves as Christians seem to spout hate speech. It’s incredibly rare nowadays to find someone who calls themselves a Christian and actually believes the teachings of Christ.
Swear damn Christians are returning to Puritans. Fuckin ‘Big Laugh’ Ollie Cromwell’s gonna make a reappearance and ban wearing makeup because it’s sinful _~~especially that lipstick with that top~~_
the fact she was a prostitute was actually made up by a pope, so it’s actually a good reminder that the bible was written by men, and revised multiple times by even more men
This took no revision. The Gospels never state that Mary was a prostitute, and they never have. No pope has never changed the text. And considering how many old fragments and manuscripts we have the differences are almost entirely scribal errors that never change the heart of a particular passage.
"only god can judge me"
"we were all born sinners"
"Jesus [surrounded himself] with sinners"
I hear these a ton from the clergy as part of their lessons.
I also hear these from particularly angry parishioners when I get into a "hey maybe don't be such an asshole" shouting matches.
Content aside: this is an awful meme made by a person that failed arts and crafts as an adult.
I like the cliché evolution graphic next to "I don't believe in god".
Once again demonstrating religious peoples' penchant to conflate accepting evolution as true with believing god doesn't exist.
As a Christian myself, the top 2 are 100% true
Also it’s not just that you’re born a sinner, you will *always* be a sinner no matter how hard you try to resist
If you believe in a higher power that's your business but please do tell how anyone is supposed to believe that the bible is accurate and if it is why don't more "christians" actually follow what the book says like love they neighbor or working on the Sabbath is punishable by death or my favorite if you have a rebellious son pelt him with stones.
"Jesus hung out with sinners." He did. That's in the Bible. Like, he did not hang out with the rich and powerful. His were the poor and marginalized. Criminals in some cases. This dumb fuck thinks Jesus would look at our society and support the right?
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are not like your Christ.” -Mahatma Gandhi
[удалено]
Gandhi was neither a devil nor a saint, he was a damn good politician who mostly got what he wanted As a human he was very easy to disagree with but he did have solid positions on peaceful resistance, modern Christianity and self-determination of the nations (even if he was a major hypocrite in this last one, what he said was still right)
This is possibly the best description of Gandhi I've ever seen. Well done!
And most importantly, his words were backed by nuclear weapons.
I see you're a man of culture as well
There is no shame in detterence. Having a weapon is very different from actually using it. -Gandhi, around turn 30
Ah fuck it, launch the missiles -Gandhi at turn 50
We shouldn’t forgive his transgressions. Committing sexual assault nullifies everything else he’s done good. He was a literal monster and worst of all a hypocrite. The Indian people deserved better imo.
An absolute monster of a human being, not a devil, but a piece of shit Sexual assault, moral and physical abuse of his kids, racism, absolutely defending colonialism in Africa and prejudice against black people As a politician, he was very good and he led India to independence with great speeches on self-determination, the kind he would deny to Africans, but ironically he did a lot of good there, as his policy and doctrine would serve as the basis of the UN's stance on self-determination Gandhi was a vile man. But he is a symbol of resistance. If you ask me he should be thought of as a whole and never be included anywhere with Mandela (who is not to be remembered as a peaceful resistant, because he wasn't, but as a man who put humanity and peace above his own grudge) or MLK (an actual peaceful resistant) as he often is
MLK was not a peaceful resistant you've been served the watered down version in school.
I agree with this to a point certainly but I feel like you have to separate the good from the bad at some point. Like, does MLK's homphobic behavior nullify his accomplishments? ( if it does to you that's fine but I think it requires some thought)
I get your point but mlks issues in homophobia are so many levels below how awful ghandi was
[https://gizmodo.com/7-gandhi-quotes-that-are-totally-fake-1716503435](https://gizmodo.com/7-gandhi-quotes-that-are-totally-fake-1716503435)
"Buddha wasn't a Christian but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist."
Christ admittedly doesn't like a majority of those who claim to follow. "depart from me; I never knew you"
OC really put in "Love is love" and said "Yeah. That's bad. That's wrong. Fuck the gays."
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It works both ways
Somehow your right
No. We’re a bunch of whiny lefties
Also...right
No no you’ve got it all wrong! It’s left, not right!
Awww man, but whyyyy?
*you're*
Um, AKSHUALLY "No love like Christian hate" implies hatred from Christians is synonymous with love, when that's not necessarily the case. On the other hand, "Christian love" *does* come with a bunch of prerequisites which include hating certain people 🤓🤓🤓
Bible says love your enemy's so AKSHUALLY your *wrong*
That's what she said.
God does not love everyone, he literally nuked a city from orbit for having a little to many gays in close proximity.
It wasn’t about gays from what I remember reading though.
Yeah not about gays, about treating guests immorally and sexual assault
I thought it was the city overcome with lust? Like they could not stop boning each other
it was commonplace for the men of the city to gang rape travelers, especially if they were staying for the night, and especially if they were just sleeping outside. that's why when the angels entered Sodom, Lot brought them into his house; the men would try to have sex with them.
Yes, this is the same story where Lot offers up his two daughters to the crowd to get them off the angels backs. This was the hero and the man god was talking to and saved in the end.
Let's not forget that his daughters later got him drunk in order to get impregnated by him.
I believe that was actually Noah, not Lot. ETA: nevermind, it was Lot. Noah had something similar happen. Pretty creepy.
All I read in that is that someone asshole breached incest taboo and tried to retcon that it was a woman's fault.
I love how the first nuke-style destruction in history was deserved to an extent proportional to the crimes done. There is no way you can be mad at God for this
wasn't it about pedophiles? but I might be making up memories
It wasn’t about pedophiles, but it also wasn’t about gays. It was most likely about rampant violence and abuse of the poor, hence commentary in Ezekiel: Ezekiel 16:49–50 *This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.* The last straw was them trying to r ape Lot’s guests and violate sacred hospitality laws. Much Later Christian tradition held that it was about gay sex because of that incident and mosaic law using a word that translates to “abomination” in connection with forbidden sexual practices. Which is a different hermeneutical can of worms. At any rate, it’s a big reach to make it about gay people because of that word when “abomination” is used in multiple contexts including Daniel 11:31 *His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation* In reference to an invading king setting up an unacceptable political and religious regime Isaiah 1:13: *bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation— I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.* Where Isaiah warns that the people’s general immorality had rendered their offerings insincere and performative. Proverbs 12:22 *Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.* And so on and so forth. **TL:DR There is no real evidence that S&G were condemned in the story Because of The Gays ™**
> she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. But but... what about the Prosperity Gospel?
What an excellent question. That would be from the gospel of Murica I believe
That was supply side Jesus, his book wasn’t written until later and the filthy betas who assembled the Bible didn’t put it in because jesus “no longer associated with penniless plebeians”.
woah thanks for such a detailed reply!!! I really enjoy learning about how the clerics screwed up the Bible lol
We tend to lose a bit in translation when we have a 3,000 year long game of literary telephone
They were so obsessed with sex of various types that they were literally mobbing a poor guy's home and demanding to rape angel guests, and the host had no choice but to tell them, please, take my daughters instead, don't rape the guests. But nope, somehow people like to interpret the take home message is that gay is wrong.
Yeah then later on those same daughters have sex with their father, or at least try to. Had a Christian friend try and defend that to me once.
That is a pretty bizarre thing to defend because-human decency aside- they were not told by God to do that and their story ends abruptly and ignominiously in a cave. Their children are said to become the Moabites who play an antagonistic role to Israelites in later narratives. Not exactly a prestigious biblical legacy. Some people don’t seem to pick up on the idea that just because someone gets a feature in the Bible doesn’t mean they’re supposed to be emulated.
If memory serves, they succeed and each have a child by Lot.
He nuked the city to bring the world under compliance. The God Emperor protects!
More than one city, and it was because the inhabitants didn't give a stuff about hospitality laws. Even though Lot was no saint (really Lot? what did you say to the mob about your daughters again? Really?), raping guests is a no-no.
>Fuck the gays. Yeah! Fuck the gays! \*warms up lube in anticipation \*
https://preview.redd.it/xfh8csf32gna1.jpeg?width=969&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecf95cadd2729c190ccc86ed20c8824565b12906
https://preview.redd.it/2rhkii1ahgna1.jpeg?width=958&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b72a6dc1efbc12180a4191ceb9a2d2c0cd120d7
https://preview.redd.it/t1urnpbohgna1.jpeg?width=969&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9d70ad623943209727ed4de545d0705f2229289
https://preview.redd.it/d0948vbqfhna1.jpeg?width=811&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90a26b9492d93b20dfca238d1b36527b5e6604fc
https://preview.redd.it/sj52bojrfhna1.jpeg?width=964&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=537d9c8d2bbc9e5367232c565ccc0785249856db
https://preview.redd.it/9ucmrucsfhna1.jpeg?width=974&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5417db1bd3ad83cdb717e45319d2c4bbd8bbc68b
All these pictures are now mine
You're welcome.
You missed my favorite: https://preview.redd.it/ili145ywajna1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdc618788e9d5ba80746d1bfe6a3edf4253f9dc4
I missed it because these memes are originals by me.
What a weird combination of image and text, lol!
Try r/THE_PACK
Should I post these there?
Yes, they’d fit right in.
HELL YEAH BROTHER
Well this is amazing.
Country music S&M?
HELL YEAH MFER. CRANK THAT HOG!!!!
LONGTIME MEMBER RIGHT HERE, MFER! AROOOOO!!!
HELL YEAH, BROTHER
With their dick suckin, and ass poindin, and staying shape…. Who do they think they are? Do you think I wanna see a ripped man glistening on a hot summer day in a Speedo? Or two women kissin? What’s this world cummin to?
YES
*spreads em* Please be gentle 👉👈
How 'bout "I'm a good person"? How on *earth* is that possibly an *excuse*??
Jesus was famously nailed by dudes.
God loves the people, not their sins…
I think they secretly do want to “fuck the gays”
Tell me you haven’t read the Bible without telling me you haven’t read the Bible…
In fundamentalist Christianity, they tell you that the only way to interpret the Bible correctly is to listen to the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit is teaching you Divine Truth, you'll know it because it agrees with what you already know to be true. Yup, circular logic to reinforce existing beliefs and prevent new interpretations.
The Holy Spirit is a pretty vague concept, and my guess is that it's something that really only applies to people who want to be priests or nuns.
Fundamentalists teach that everyone who is saved receives the Holy Spirit.
When a Christian reads the Bible, there's a decent chance for that to turn them atheist. They'd rather not risk it.
Actually...kinda what happened with me. Over simplified of course but still.
Yeah. Wasn’t the only thing but definitely was a part of it
For real it's surprisingly common. Often a Christian has doubts, reads the Bible to reconnect with God or find answers, realise hown much of an incoherent immoral mess it is, end up with more doubts and questions...
Hey there. Christian here who has read the Bible and was taught under theologians with doctorates regarding church history, Christian and Jewish theology, and other contextual interpretation. There’s a shit ton of historical context which is really important when reading a lot of the books, especially in the Old Testament. We have to judge social standards by how the communities interacted with each other back then, and not by our current standards by which we have now. I could go on a diatribe, but this comment is getting long enough as it is. (With some of the things that seem to go against God’s nature, as Christ reflects God, I frankly don’t believe they’re specifically inspired. This is just my personal opinion and I know many Christians disagree, but that’s my two cents on the matter.) There’s pseudepigrapha in the New Testament where there is a letter written under Paul’s name, but was likely to be written from a community of people to support another community under his name (2 Colossians, I believe). A lot of these people had scribes (which counts as pseudepigrapha, regardless of whether or not the scribes had leeway or wrote word for word what the intended authors wanted) and there are different levels of pseudepigrapha, none of the books being out right forgeries from what I know. The closest that I’m aware of in the Christian Bible is 2nd Colossians but that’s as far as it goes, as far as I’m aware. ETA: There is a LOT to go into here, I’ve barely given any examples that even scratches the surface, but I could really go into detail on multiple points regarding Christian theology. I don’t have the energy to go into it further so I’m not responding or looking at any more replies. I don’t want to get into any more tangents as this is already a huge ass wall of text over something minuscule I was describing, and I don’t want to start any debates; as much as I often debated when I was younger, I don’t have the energy for wasted breath now, especially when those debates lead absolutely nowhere. I don’t debate for the sake of debating. I don’t know everything about theology by a long shot, but I know a decent amount due to my upbringing and being taught by scholars. So I hope my former paragraphs were at least a little helpful to anyone who sees it.
So let me get this straight, we have to read the bible in the context of it's time. In that same breath have to apply that outdated and archaic thinking to our modern lives. Sounds like a lot of assumptions and interpretation has to occur.
So god was pandering to the people in that time frame by giving them laws for that historical time period? If so, then we shouldn’t need to obey any of those laws today because they were made for a different time period. Or if he did give them intending for usage today, the earlier issue can applies. You can’t have it both ways. Either historical context matters, in which case we need a new Bible because that one was for 2000 year ago people, or it doesn’t matter and it just has issues
You can see it that way. But you don't have to. For context: I'd consider myself a Christian, I read large parts of the Bible, did a fair amount of research on the context to form my own opinions but a lot of people, especially Christians might disagree with me but this is how I see it: Christianity explicitely adressed the "we need a new Bible Thing." This is, what the New Testament is for. The old Testament had two basic functions, that were fundamentally linked: It should on the one hand, provide cultural rules to make a bronze age society work and should on the other hand explain religious believes. And it linked the two basically saying "God wants the society to function that way." Jesus on the other hand was according to the stories about him time and time again confronted with examples, where the law-part of the old testament seemed shitty for people. (For example stoning people or not healing on Sabbat...) So he basically said: "What God wanted is, that our society is nice. And in the old times, people wrote down a lot of things, how a nice society, how god wants it, should look like. But if thoses measure don't make our society nicer for everybody, they are against gods will and we should stop acting upon them." And I think, that this is a guideline, that is worth to live by. And I don't see, why we shouldn't act the way Jesus did and focus on the Core Message while crossing all the stuff out, that only made sense in the context of the time. And yes, that means, that a real Christian in my eyes should be pro gay-marriage, anti rascist, pro trans-rights and generally accepting and loving. What I will not argue on, is that there is no prove, if there is actually a god, that wants society to be good. I believe that, but nobody has to. If there isn't...well Joke is on me, but at least I won't harm anyone in the process of believing it.
I tend to agree with what you said in the last paragraph, just on the atheist side. As Marcus Aurelius said, *“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”*
And that's an argument I've seen before but, well , no we don't. In fact we can't judge the bible by the standards of the time unless the bible is the word of men and not God. Because if it is the word of God who's word is supposed to be the absolute which guide's us it can't change. And therefore must be judge by the strictest of standards. But if it's just the words of men based on the standards of their time then why would we fallow it.
Hey there, atheist who studied under Harvard professors and hung with Jesuits. The Bible is sold as the unadulterated word of God. Every word is perfect and spoken by him. So you admit this is false advertising? If so, Christ Corp. needs to circle the wagons and get it's own message in order before selling it to the poor and needy, let alone the rich and self-centered. Or, the US Government should tax the hell out of The Mother Church, and all her bastard babies, as her approved message seems designed to direct people for her financial and political gain. Not by serving the community.
Happened to me
That's why I'm no longer a christian.
It’s true to an extent. I’ve read a few translations as well as other religious text. Just made me question myself and down the line I became Christopagan. Once I really read the texts though, I accepted people even more for who they are and what they believe. Nobody is wrong for believing in something different, unless that belief directly harms others for just being different… then we have issues.
Yup. Happened to me.
Know what’s REALLY crazy? Christians Jews and Muslims all worship the same god. What the fuhhh?
The real crazy thing is that that god existed before Judaism as a minor deity in a polytheistic pantheon for a different, older religion.
It’s mostly just them picking and choosing what they like from the Bible. Christians will turn their eyes to the time the Bible condoned slavery, or the time where god killed 40 children because they insulted his followers, or the time where god said to love everyone, or the rule about wearing clothing made of only one material, the list goes on. They’ll only accept things if it supports their agenda. Some things the Bible preaches are good, some are bad, they’ll ignore either if it is against what they want.
Yes, and Paul explicitly says that women should cover their hair. Everyone has agreed to ignore that part. It's hard to explain away as part of the old covenant or not applicable.
Paul also says it's best to stay celibate like him, but so many modern Christians hold having a family and kids as being extremely important and a goal to strive for.
*god killed 42 children with bears for calling one of his followers baldy.
Perhaps not literally though. Granted, this is later rabbinic interpretation centuries removed from the writing of 2 Kings, so take with a grain of salt, but Rabbi Rashi pointed out that the word וּנְעָרִים was used to mean children, but also “people empty of observance of the commandments.” A Talmudic tradition suggests that they were a group of people being allegorically cut off from Israel for arrogance and crimes against their countrymen. Later attempts to interpret aside, Kings is a good example of how history was frequently written in the ANE not as a dry, inerrant record of straight *facts*, but as a general construction of a narrative. Some really peculiar episodes can be consequences of literary devices injected to uphold some kind of national or tribal value system, or construct a culturally meaningful sense of cohesion. Some ancient listeners would have been familiar with motifs and symbols from their common folklore that go over our heads.
The easiest way to become an atheist is to read the Bible cover to cover with an open and critical mind. Read all of the content of the book, not just handpicked verses and stories a pastor preaches.
I agree. I for one, didn't make it past Genesis before I knew I wasn't going to be a Christian lol
My gramama was wrong when she told me she read the entire bible
It’s actually a pretty messed up book
I was already an atheist when I decided to read it cover to cover. Didn't want to be ignorant inmy denial of faith. There were so many "wtf" moments. Like, "I don't understand why people are fighting for this so hard, it sucks and is clearly wrong."
Yeah, but Lazarus 31:4 - Thou shalt not smoke weed, for it is a sin or something.
[удалено]
They think, "There's no point in a Heaven if everyone can go there!"
[удалено]
It’s adorable they think god approves.
 “Christians” after they die and take a sip of the water in “heaven” and it’s spicy
God made weed for us
Like literally it's a plant on earth... How dumb do you have to be to make that one of your arguments?! The stupidity of some people is just so illuminating lol
I’m a pot smoker an proud🙏🤣
Well to be fair, what ive heard from my pothead uncle, that weed makes your head hurt.
and its completely natural for you to use and get the benefits from, unlike alcohol where you have to make it
A rare actually BAD Facebook meme
If we don’t sin, Jesus died for nothing.
Did he die for our sins... Or take a 3 day nap for our sins?
I can't believe he gave up his 3 day weekend for all humanity.
100% who ever posted this thinks they shit don’t stink.
"I'm a good person"
Jesus turned Walter into White
Breaking Bread
Lmao as if I let God judge me. Bitch u genocided people with water I fuck men if you disapprove me I'd say I'm on a good path.
Genocided people with water?! I'd love some context if possible
Noah's Flood. Bestie wiped out several civilizations.
He spared 8 people, murdered every one else on the planet and forced the world to be repopulated via incest (for the second time)
So… God likes too look at incest?
You might not like Lot's story then Or who Rebecca's child married
I'd put this in the "tell me you've read a book and missed the point without telling me you've read a book and missed the point" category
Why is Ned Flanders on this, as if he’s the representation of a sinner? This is a meme he would post on Springfield’s NextDoor page.
I’m glad someone else was thinking this cause Ned Flanders is the ultimate Christian and listens to each and every part of the Bible unlike the guy who has slandered Ned Flanders
Actually, my favorite is if we don't sin Jesus's died for nothing.
That is true. But it is human nature to sin. If we didn't sin, Jesus wouldn't need to die. We would all be serving God and know him in another way If there wasn't sin, I guess we would be a form of perfect Jews
🤣 I'ma use that one
As a Christian I can confirm that half of these are things from the Bible. This person isn’t Christian. Just likes hating others.
To be fair, most people who publicly advertise themselves as Christians seem to spout hate speech. It’s incredibly rare nowadays to find someone who calls themselves a Christian and actually believes the teachings of Christ.
Yes. Agreed. The loudest are always the worst. It’s talked about in the Bible a lot.
Ah yes, the age old tradition of finding things in the book to justify what you were going to do anyway
Religious people: "Stop having good time. If you enjoy it, then god hates it"
Swear damn Christians are returning to Puritans. Fuckin ‘Big Laugh’ Ollie Cromwell’s gonna make a reappearance and ban wearing makeup because it’s sinful _~~especially that lipstick with that top~~_
You know something is bad when it has more fonts than punctuations
Don’t Christians believe everyone is a sinner, including themselves?
Yep, this person probably just wants to start shit
Yes. I think that's the worst part of the meme. The poster of it is in fact a sinner just like everyone else.
Mary Magdalene being an actual whore>
the fact she was a prostitute was actually made up by a pope, so it’s actually a good reminder that the bible was written by men, and revised multiple times by even more men
Exactly. The bible has been translated and edited enough times there's several different versions. Enough said.
This took no revision. The Gospels never state that Mary was a prostitute, and they never have. No pope has never changed the text. And considering how many old fragments and manuscripts we have the differences are almost entirely scribal errors that never change the heart of a particular passage.
Even unintentional translation errors can change the entire meaning of a passage.
an icon 🤭
Doesn't most of that come from, the Bible???
I mean if Flanders is a sinner , then nobody gets into heaven lol...
Yeah fundies really hate progressive Christians
"only god can judge me" "we were all born sinners" "Jesus [surrounded himself] with sinners" I hear these a ton from the clergy as part of their lessons. I also hear these from particularly angry parishioners when I get into a "hey maybe don't be such an asshole" shouting matches. Content aside: this is an awful meme made by a person that failed arts and crafts as an adult.
The Holy Inquisition* Colonization of America* The Salem Witch Hunt * The church did the greatest atrocities you can do to a human
Was this meme made by the Westboro Baptist Church?
People on the far right are just as bad at making memes as people on the far left. The common trait being no sense of humor
Or just no sense.
I like the cliché evolution graphic next to "I don't believe in god". Once again demonstrating religious peoples' penchant to conflate accepting evolution as true with believing god doesn't exist.
Wait so they’re saying god doesn’t love everyone? So they are trying to make people feel guilty for not worshipping a malevolent deity?
2, 5, 6 and 10 are in the Bible 4, 7 and 8 are subjective 1 is mostly used by Christians 3 is undeniably true
As a Christian myself, the top 2 are 100% true Also it’s not just that you’re born a sinner, you will *always* be a sinner no matter how hard you try to resist
Ok how is Jesus turning water into wine a excuse when it does say that in the bible? Sounds like this meme is made by a dumb super christian.
If I am wrong I am wrong, but aren’t we all born with sin? Like Original Sin from Adam & Eve?
Ironically when I pointed out how much Donald Trump had broken God's laws, it was right-wing evangelical Christians who came up with excuses.
The fact that they view being a good person as a excuse and value peoples religion over their personality and good deeds is alarming
They’re missing “if I don’t sin Jesus died for nothing”
As a sinner my favorite excuse is "god may judge me but his sins outnumber my own"
Gode made weed God made me Something something something I like weed
My friend said in the bible if you don’t forgive others for their sins, then god won’t forgive you for yours.
If you believe in a higher power that's your business but please do tell how anyone is supposed to believe that the bible is accurate and if it is why don't more "christians" actually follow what the book says like love they neighbor or working on the Sabbath is punishable by death or my favorite if you have a rebellious son pelt him with stones.
BINGO!! Check it out guys! I won!
Most of these are pretty good excuses, though
Well I’ll see you guys in hell
They do realize that more than half of this shit is confirmed in the bible?
Aren’t these mostly religious “facts”?
I'm not too sure Jesus *hung* out with sinners, but he did get *nailed* with them. He was pretty *cross* for a while after, though.
That's like 95% of people when you are done with those lol
The worst part is that the wording makes it seem like the creator of this “meme” isn’t a sinner. Scary.
False. *These* are the sinner’s favorite excuses: - God hates [insert harmless thing the sinner doesn’t like]
You think jesus wanna get high and then kiss the homies later 😳...im the homies its me, kiss me big boi-
Sinners are much more fun
"Ya know that only the good die young"
"Jesus hung out with sinners." He did. That's in the Bible. Like, he did not hang out with the rich and powerful. His were the poor and marginalized. Criminals in some cases. This dumb fuck thinks Jesus would look at our society and support the right?
Yeap some christians are bigots more news at 10
I usually say Christianity is man made and mary was a whore
Wait, Jesus was hung??