deleted by creator
So the magaTs are now anti modification but still completely fine with mutilating young males with circumcisions. Yeah, checks out for more insanity form the cult.
i do wonder why trans children are their main target when the plastic surgery industry has many more people to bully
I’m not sure if they’re main target, but they’re certainly a target. Anyone who isn’t behind them is an enemy.
The one thing brain worms McGee could have done and gotten a nod from me, and he fucked it up by throwing autism in there! Seriously though, I’m so glad my mom is as bull headed as she is and told the hospital staff to fuck off when they were pushing for that shit.
Like why is a cereal manufacturer still having us mutilate newborns?
MAGA is just #newchristian hate
There’s a version of the bible they’ve been pushing that adds some “truth” to these nasty attitudes. And people love to shove it in your face “see!?! It’s printed here, it has to be true!!!”
Goddamn I love that shit. You know how many times I’ve been told I’m wrong for being an Atheist because “the Bible says God is real!” That line never gets old, I tell ya what.
it’s silly because maga women are getting boob jobs and maga men are getting hair transplants
Maga men also are much more likely to take steroids and/or penis pills. And let’s talk about semiglutides. For people who think modern medicine is evil, and all doctors and pills are trying to kill you, they sure are conveniently unaware of their own convictions when it comes to vanity.
To be fair, as long as they don’t crossdress, don’t have gay sex and don’t undergo genital surgery, they should be in the clear.
So as a trans person you’re allowed to… change your name and pronouns? I think that’s it, as far as the Bible goes.
The Bible old and New testament is trans affirming although it has some passages against homosexuality. In fact the old testament says that eunuchs are allowed and even favored in heaven, but aren’t allowed in temples. Jesus says that some people are made that way, some born that way, and some choose to be that way to serve God, but doesn’t create a strong requirement to be kind to them, rather saying, those who can understand this should understand it. So both God and Jesus are trans affirming and says so in the Bible, but a man should not lay with another man and also there is a verse about a man should t wear the clothes of a woman, but I don’t think that would apply to eunarchs which are not considered men or women or to have a gender.
This is actually a pretty cool loophole for gay people. If you are a bottom you could just become trans if you have to live in a religiously oppressive society. It gives at least one pathway to happiness and love, but I know there are many gay people who prefer to be masculine while also homosexual.
As a trans person I don’t believe in religion myself but I do pray to God. Maybe an old habit. My idea of God isn’t a skypervert, and authoritarian but more like a friendly spirit who helps people who have good hearts and teaches wisdom to those who have dark hearts, but still stay aligned with the ineffable platonic good.
Even as a child it always seemed really silly to me that a god would care about who you love or what you wore. That never made any sense to me. I always assumed God was more intelligent than your average human. People who believe those things are not really believers in my opinion. All their assumptions are obviously coming from a place of, not actually believing in God, but wanting to use it as a tool to hurt people they don’t like. I see a totally different perspective. To me those people seem miserable and suffering in their own confusion and I always considered that to be justice for their own shittiness and their audacity to badmouth God out of their cynicism. God usually doesn’t punish much, he will sometimes destroy, but when people abuse his name and know him not, then it’s kind of fair game. They are in his debt and owe him for the trouble they cause him.
Nope, changing pronouns is compelling speech according to evangelical extremists. Oh and changing your name should only apply to last name’s of women and young girls getting married, cuz we gotta keep in mind however many states still allow child marriage.
Funny how it’s only the religious Reich that even attempts to defend child marriage.
I mean there is shit like Deuternonom 23, 1
“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
Maybe just don’t give a shit about some non-sensical book some dudes in the desert made up.
i mean it’s a little outdated
but some of the lines are fire
“easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than a rich person to get into heaven” and “love thy neighbor” were good
maybe it’s time for a rewrite
I think Leviticus has some lines about protecting immigrants, too.
maybe it’s time for a rewrite
with ray tracing?
New bible requires rtx 4060 or higher abs 64 gigs RAM.
and an AI chatbot powered by Bing
And AI upscaling?
Deuteronomy more like Neuteronomy
Didn’t Jesus say he was the new covenant therefore ignore all the ancient laws and follow Jesus? Jesus himself is unworthy if you follow the Old Testament
Matthew 5, 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.
In short: Nope.
In practice, Christians don’t think this means all old testament laws remain in force literally. That’s a contradiction when they want to use literalism elsewhere, but that’s not most Christians.
Of course they don’t, cause that would be uncomfortable. I know, cause I used to think the same way before ridding myself of faith.
That sounds like something of a thought terminating cliche. I think it’s at once simpler and more complicated.
Simpler because most Christians don’t think overly much about their beliefs and believe their church’s doctrine. More complicated because many do, and those that do think way beyond what’s “comfortable”. Scholarship going back millennia had dispelled - for scholars - any notion of biblical inerrancy, never mind literalism. For those who don’t believe the Bible’s plain reading is all true, there is no discomfort here - it would be a supreme arrogance to accuse minds such as Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas of merely believing whatever feels comfortable.
That doesn’t mean they’re right obviously, but you can do better than such dismissal.
It’s not arrogance to say that if you have already found your conclusion then any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement will just be explained away. Either by mistranslations, missing historical or cultural context or somesuch.
Sure but it’s arrogant to claim that all of these thinkers from ages past were actually doing that. I don’t agree with any of them because I’m not religious but they had serious reasons for the views they held, and there were serious disagreements on matters of religion that caused serious debates with serious arguments put forward.
any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement
We’re talking about the content of the Bible and its interpretation, not “counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction.” (And: modern religions are far to flexible to be subject to “clear contradictions”. I’m sure you’ve heard the responses from religious people to your criticisms already - you find those response unsatisfactory, as do I, but they expose a way in which you misunderstood the fundamental character of the religion you were criticising. I can expand if necessary)
So when it comes to scripture like “I didn’t come to change the law” and so on, there are any number of ways of interpreting the language non-literally in a way consistent with modern Christian practice. I’m not going to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate with you but dismissing such things completely and out of hand is ignorant. People with better understanding of Biblical languages than you or I have studied more of the Bible than you or I have and have had long-running arguments it. If you don’t believe the fundamental principles then… just let them have it? Dispute them when they come up against obvious moral or scientific principles, or on their other statements, but claiming with zero argumentation that they don’t do any real thinking is silly.
If they aren’t ripping apart a pigeon and lighting it on fire on a rock after touching any wild game meat, then they’re not a true Christian.
What defines “true Christian” for you? Can he put sugar on his porridge?
what’s a good counter to “it says being gay is a sin in Leviticus” ?
Wearing those pants is also a sin- Both to the lord, and to my fashion sense! (Assuming theyre wearing a blended fabric)
The verse was meant to discourage religious eunichs, as so many verses were just meant to enact a change within a group of people long ago, the entire book of Deuteronomy for instance was telling Jews a specific code to live by, including sanitation and hygiene laws. Good way to encode your culture’s safeguards, bad way to ensure their future peace.
Yeah sure, all the uncomfortable verses always mean something different while all the positive verses are true and valid even without context.
Meanwhile I’m here struggling to remember when exactly Christians cared about what Jesus told them to do.
Broad strokes… I know plenty of people who are Christians who attend church and hold very progressive views. I’m sorry that your experience with believers has been so poor. Please do try to remember that nobody talks about the person who isn’t bothering anyone with their beliefs.
I’m in agreement… there are so many kind, compassionate religious people who follow the good parts of the literature that I hate to see the entire religion maligned. Some people are better because of it.
They enable the ones who do cause problems.
Helping others do harm but not physically doing it yourself does not absolve you of responsibility.
Once again, you are painting with broad strokes. If a bad apple spoils the bunch then all of humanity is bad apples. A Christian following the teachings of Jesus in Scripture over the cultural American WASP perception of what those teachings are, does not necessarily enable those WASPs to do harm.
Many of them do speak out against and actively oppose those who use religion as an excuse for bigotry.
Then some idiot responds with “No True Scotsman” and thinks they made a brilliant retort against someone who you would think they would be on the same side as.
No those people just are friends and enabling the pedos of their local church. You are the people you associate with and the church is the biggest pedo organization on the planet.
You are the people you associate with
Do they associate with people 2000 miles away? Or do they just like the same book?
Is everyone who enjoys Lord of the Rings responsible for the actions of other LotR fans?
Can you read? “Of their local church” is what I clearly stated.
Take your straw man elsewhere.
You think every church has pedos in it and you accuse me of building a straw man?
Statistically yes. Yes they do. The Catholic Church alone has the highest percentage of pedos from ANY organization.
In the most recent news it’s once again not trans or gay people grooming children, it’s the fucking leader of a church. AGAIN.
I agree, but they don’t deserve to be called fundamentalists the way they revise the bible
All what this does is whitewash christian fundamentalist atrocities, similarly to how the “um, ackchually, the nazis were socialists” is now giving a green light to the far right of today to repeat hystorical mistakes all across the world.
Well, they consider the old testament the fundamentals.
Bo they fucking don’t. If they did football would be a far less popular sport in the US, for example. They care about a few specific things that fit their (leader’s) politics.
This.
Jesus said nothing about people transitioning and gender, but IIRC early and medieval Christian scholars condemned bodily modifications because the body was God’s creation and property and it ought to be kept intact for resurrection.
The one who can accept this should accept it.
I mean… That’s a start. But what about the ones that can’t seem to accept it?
I don’t know enough about transgender people in ancient times to argue about the definition of “eununch”. Thanks for your contribution, though.
Matthew was written about 80 CE. Nero was emperor until 68. Nero rather famously took a eunuch as a “wife”, Sporus, which most in the Roman empire and likely the author of Matthew would have been aware of.
Christian scholars condemned bodily modifications because they wanted to control your body instead.
Always has been.
Yeah, that’s basically all of major religions. Their rationale was resurrection and the rapture.
I would like to know how, at least in some Christian variations, that you can’t have tats or piercings when the text I remember covering the subject was more like, “don’t burn your corpse, you’re gonna need it when the time comes.” If I had tats or whatever, I’d still have an intact body to be resurrected. 🤷♂️
My guess is that someone was jealous of his fellow’s tats and it all snowballed from there
The Bible is an inconsistent mess that people can read anything into. Referring to it is an exercise in cherry-picking. It has good Jesus parts, but there’s the whole rest of the morally bankrupt nonsense with evil god shit:
- vengeful god who
- commands genocide, demands worship, & creates evil
- punishes disobedience with curses, plagues, cuckoldry, cannibalism to eat your own children, slavery, infighting
- endorses genocide, killing innocents, slavery, selling daughters to sex slavery, rape, forced marriage of victim to their rapist, inequality of women
- weird purity codes against pork & shellfish; mixing fibers, crops, animals; particular facial hairstyles; tattoos; body modification; etc.
- an afterlife that punishes nonbelievers who do good
all while claiming to be the final word of god. Arguing for good while referring to the Bible requires willfully overlooking all of that: it isn’t good.
I was never raised Christian due to my family being a mix of Catholics and Protestants who had all mostly given up on church going cept forbguberals and weddings…
The only exposure I ever gad to the Bible was reading comics of a Lego rendition of it called the brick testament. (Its actually creatively genius)
You’ve basically described everything i remember about it to a T
The Brick Bible was anti-christian propoganda
- an afterlife that punishes nonbelievers who do good
Here’s a fun fact: that one is not in there. The Bible is consistent on that, at least. Death is death, but those who who are judged to be “righteous” will be given eternal life in a newly crafted reality. Everyone else goes back to dead.
Yep, the wages of sin being death. Not hell, not punishment, sinners merely remain dead.
I checked before writing the last comment, and it’s mentioned a few times. Nonbelievers are punished in the afterlife.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Only “born-again”/baptized enter heaven
John 3:3–5
- Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
- Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
- Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
and believers should not perish, but get everlasting life.
John 3:14–16
- And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
- That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
As for those who do perish, that happens in hell.
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Nonbelievers are denied entry.
Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
This all appears in the New Testament.
The older, Jewish scriptures don’t mention hell. However, Deuteronomy 13 is all about Moses instructing the Israelites to murder heretics. Moral bankruptcy.
None of the things you just shared refer to the pagan concept of an afterlife. Read them again in the context of what I wrote. What the Christian scripture says — very clearly — is in line with Pharisaic Judaism. You die, there is a resurrection for judgement, and the unrighteous are destroyed while the righteous are “saved” from death and given another, “perfect” life.
It’s especially telling that you used a translation that literally has the word “hell” in it, which is a deliberate mistranslation. The word in question there is “gehenna” which carries a very specific meaning that does not, in any way, infer an afterlife. In fact, the unrighteous are repeatedly equated with trash, which is disposed of by burning. Destruction is final and eternal. The idea of the afterlife as a literal place was lifted from Hellenism as Rome gradually assimilated Christianity into it’s existing religious frameworks.
Your claims lack links to supporting references. At least I provide them & link to multiple distinct passages that all seem to converge to the same conclusion. As for the translation, we’re not about to learn ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek to refer to the earliest texts. This is where linking to a more faithful translation would come in if you can do that.
refer to the pagan concept of an afterlife
Not pagan: the Torah refers to Sheol as either (1) a metaphor for grave or (2) a bleak netherworld where all the dead reside (comparable to Hades). The Tanakh (Daniel 12:2) mentions a general resurrection & afterlife. This made its way into the Old Testament.
The Pharisaic school, which became Rabbinic Judaism, claimed to keep an explanatory Oral Torah for the written Torah, which they eventually codified as the Talmud. This started with the 2nd Temple period before & concurrent with early Christianity, thus influencing its scriptures. The Talmud refers to an afterlife in terms of Sheol, Olam Ha-Ba, Gehinnom:
- Olam Ha-Ba: a place of reward for the righteous
- Gehinnom: a cursed valley identified in the Torah that also refers to a place of 12-month punishment/purification for the impure before they may proceed to Olam Ha-Ba. (The utterly wicked may not proceed.)
Cultures evolve & acquire ideas from exposure to other cultures. Their traditions & mythological texts are no exception. Judaism & early Christianity likely adopted ideas of duality of good & evil, free will, resurrection, an afterlife, divine justice from contacting cultures.[1]
in line with Pharisaic Judaism
The word in question there is “gehenna” which carries a very specific meaning that does not, in any way, infer an afterlife.
They claimed the contrary: see earlier mention of Gehinnom (the Hebrew name for Gehenna).
the unrighteous are destroyed
In all translations, the famous passage in Matthew about sorting the sheep & goats to different sides specifically mentions eternal punishment for those who don’t get eternal life. Moreover, resurrection is a life after death, ie, an afterlife. None of this is consistent with lack of punishment.
As I wrote before, the Bible is inconsistent, so even the Bible you claim is mistranslated indicates you’re right about the absence of an afterlife & the absence of hell. They both do & don’t exist!
We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Welcome to inconsistency: you can read absolutely anything into the Bible.
Mediterranean & Near East cultures in regular contact were likely exposed to ideas from
- Ancient Egypt: the idea of an afterlife with divine judgement traces as far back as 1500 BCE.
- Persia: the oldest passages of the Zoroastrian Avesta (the Gathas is thought to have existed before 1000 BCE) introduce a cosmic duality between asha (roughly good) & druj (roughly evil), free will, & personal accountability resulting in a duality of rewards in the afterlife: the house of Song or best of existences rewards asha whereas the house of Lie (described as a place of prolonged darkness, foul food, woe) rewards druj.
The Tanakh refers to ancient Egypt & evidently admires Cyrus the Great (of Persia) by designating him a messiah for the return of Jews to Zion and building of the 2nd Temple. Christianity features the Biblical Magi (the term for Zoroastrian or Persian priests). ↩︎
Now this is a properly nuanced take.
Former evangelical fundamentalist raised in this stuff. Just curious, don’t answer if you don’t want to, what’s your background?
Also, if you have the time and energy:
What are your thoughts on modern day efforts to breed red heifers/resume sacrifices?
Connections between the US evangelical right and fundamentalist judaism?
Mike Johnson scares the fuck out of me, how dangerous do you think he is?
So the righteous are given another life after death, but it’s not an afterlife? So glad I can just semantics myself some salvation.
To which non-existent god do I pray for people to learn the difference between its and it’s?
Maybe Thoth or Hermes. Odin discovered the Runes, so a case could also be made for him.
If you pray to any of them, be sure your patron deity Momus doesn’t find out.
Touché
😘
But only believers can be “righteous”:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:/Not of works, lest any man should boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9
While James pointed out that if your behavior doesn’t reflect belief, then you don’t actually believe. The point is that being showy doesn’t score you points, living by the principles — because you believe they are right — is all that matters.
Judaism has a concept for the Righteous Gentile. You don’t have to believe in their god, if you live by the Noachide moral precepts, even unintentionally, then you are righteous.
- vengeful god who
- commands genocide, demands worship, & creates evil
- punishes disobedience with curses, plagues, cuckoldry, cannibalism to eat your own children, slavery, infighting
Punishing evil- what’s the problem?
God doesn’t create evil- that’s the work of man. Man has free will. If you think God demanding worship is bad but also giving free will is bad, then you’re a contradiction.
- endorses genocide, killing innocents, slavery, selling daughters to sex slavery, rape, forced marriage of victim to their rapist,
Where?
inequality of women
In what way? If you think women and men having different roles is bad- that’s coming from your own opinion based on your culture. Would you judge an Arabian or African culture for believing in different roles? On what basis, apart from ingrained white supremacism?
- weird purity codes against pork & shellfish; mixing fibers, crops, animals; particular facial hairstyles; tattoos; body modification; etc.
That was to give the early israelites a national identity to be set apart. It’s irrelevant now as the purpose has been fulfilled.
- an afterlife that punishes nonbelievers who do good
No, there isn’t. Nobody does good, not even one.
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
That includes sin my guy.
Darkness is the absence of light. He gave us free will to create sin. That’s like blaming a chicken farmer for making fentanyl because they sell eggs to the fentanyl makers who eat them for energy.
Don’t worry, I would never take credit for the creation of fentanyl away from your “loving” creator, thanks for that one, Jehovah.
Who made the light? Whoever made the light made the darkness at the same exact time. Who created man with the capacity for “evil”? The same entity that decided what is and isn’t evil, in the universe it created out of nothing. First there was no evil, then god made man, and then there was evil. Either your god created everything or it’s not god. 🤷♂️
- vengeful god who
There were 2 big things that cover 90% of things Jesus said in the Bible.
- love people. Full stop. Yes, them too.
- don’t listen to hypocrites that make up religious rules and tell you you have to obey them.
The other 10% includes Jesus declaring that you can’t conduct trade in a temple, and beating merchants with a whip.
I ain’t Christian but I will happily do the Christlike act of beating a priest with a whip.
Also something I want to note Jesus made the whip meaning that wasn’t just rage that was true fury that made him dedicate a day towards crafting his instrument of retribution. Which is just metal.
When you’re so furious you go home and craft for entire day, sleep, wake up and you’re still mad enough to whip ass.
deleted by creator
Remember, God doesn’t make mistakes. So if God made you trans and put you here in this time where you have the options to explore that, well… seems pretty clear to me.
It’s either all part of God’s plan, or none of it is.
Wait, this depends on how someone views it… If they’re a fucking idiot with a child’s understanding, a binary reality means it requires altering someones’ body to transition. That’s the only perspective where it’s “modifying” someones’ body.
If you’re an adult with a developed brain and a basic highschool understanding of genetics, it’s not exactly modifying ones’ body, but merely influencing hormones to reflect how someone feels.
If you’re an adult with a collegiate level of understanding, then people ‘feeling’ like a different gender is the fucking tip of the iceberg, and genetics fucking demonstrates that it’s way more complex.
What is said in the bible, is that reality is more complex than dummies can understand, so leave judging up to God.
I like how dickheads pick and choose which parts of the old testament to follow and which bits of the new to ignore as suits their bigotry and hate
Ecclesiastes 9:5 says dead is dead, directly contradicting everything about any afterlives or heaven. Christians pick and choose which parts to follow because they have to, it’s literally impossible to follow the entire thing.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
It also goes on to say go have fun and live your life. That does not some compatible with the strict puritan Christianity most seem to follow.
Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
[…]
Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.Yeah,
It’s almost all though it’s all bullshit or something… 🤔
Even funnier when they never took any religious studies class or anything.
I hate gatekeeping too but “it’s up to interpretation” used to imply they know fundamentals of philosophy and have the necessary historic context knowledge to form opinions.
Hell, at some point they would have to learn latin or hebrew just to not have their arguments ignored instantly.
Meanwhile these people make fun of college philosophy lectures and only know history about WW2 and how germany could have “won” according to that one 4chan user.
If they heard anyone speaking hebrew they would call the police because “it sounded Arab.”
This reminds of a similar pet peeve - people who hate on the humanities but worship pseudo-scientific economic ideology (aka capitalist religion).
Those people need a philosophy class more than most.
Well, why else do you think religions persist? Evolutionary pressure has selected it because it’s useful.
“Persist” is a funny word to use when you’re talking about human history on an evolutionary level, seeing as how we’ve evolved very little from our conception in Africa only a few hundred thousand years ago, practically the blink of an eye on the evolutionary scale. Even if religion has been around from the beginning of our species, it hasn’t really “persisted” very long at all.
As far as religion’s “use” in an evolutionary sense, the only thing that evolution selects for is more babies. If you have more babies than your peers, you’re more evolutionarily “fit,” it’s that simple. You could then say that religions that encourage their members to have more children are useful, but again, that’s only if you think the most important thing in the life of a human is for them to have more babies. Most people would say other things are more important when it comes to human life, which would make evolution useless as a metric to determine the “use” of religion.
Well why do you think flat earthism persists? hur dur evolution!!!
I didn’t know most people are flat earthers. Do you have a source for that? There’s no real evolutionary pressure for or against a flat earth, it looks flat, for the vast majority of human existence people barely traveled beyond their birth place, or knew how to read.
OTOH, religious people far outnumber logical people, so … why? You got something better than “hur dur” to explain that?
People not following any particular religion get laid at roughly the same rates as followers of religion. So there would be no evolutionary pressure involved there.
It was, but we’ve outgrown it
The mark of civilisation is to be better than our base nature
Religion has had its day. Now it’s all about power and money (it pretty much always was, but I’m trying to be generous)
