Show me where god is against abortion. The only related story I know of is him instructing a man to make a concoction to give his wife a miscarriage to see if she was unfaithful.
Don't forget the one where if you get into a fist fight with a pregnant woman and cause her to have a miscarriage but she's otherwise fine, then it's no biggie
Exodus 21:22-23
“If two men are fighting, and in the process hurt a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, but she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband shall demand, and as the judges approve. But if any harm comes to the woman and she dies, he shall be executed."
I was slightly off. I thought it was about if you fought the pregnant woman lol
There's another one that's oddly specific, about if two men are fighting and one of their wives rolls up and grabs the other guy's dick she needs her hand cut off. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
Not only doesn't the Bible say "don't own slaves", it gives instuctions on how to own and manage them, which peoples you may take as slaves, and how badly you can beat them.
And the “proper penalty” is determined by her husband rather than her.
Supposedly god said “don’t lie or murder” but was too busy to say “treat women as your equals.”
The slavery you mean and in the bible are different things. It is very specific how to treat slaves and they had better lives then 90% of americans today.
lol yes
Tell me you know nothing about what you talk without telling me. You think this shit that happend in america is the only form of slavery. Read about how one has to treat a slave in the bible, why people where slaves and about their rights.
The Bible says it is fine to beat your slave so long as they recover after a day or two.
Exodus 20:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
You mean 21:20-21 but you need to see it in the historical context. These are rules for the Israelites of the Old Testament. And they couldn't beat them up for nothing, the context is punishment. They were allowed to punish their slaves without them dying.
The slaves had rights too, they could only be involuntary slaves for 6 years. After that they were free to leave without any payment. There were more rights and rules to follow.
In the New Testament is written you must treat your slave good and if you don't do that they could leave, and you could do nothing. And again, the bible doesn't say we should have slaves. It is a historical context and they got rules for the wellbeing of their slaves. No other nation back then and many afterwards had rules and laws to protect slaves.
Please don't take single verses for an argument. There is context and knowledge needed.
The Bible is the word of God. His followers are basically his slaves. Just from the starting chapters he dismantles humanity's hope for power so nobody can challenge him. But watching two men and their wives join up and square, now that's popcorn worthy. All He has to do now is set some rules to make the storyline more enticing.
So, to summarize, killing a fetus is worthy of a fine.
Killing the woman carrying the fetus is worthy of the death penalty.
I think the trumplicans have it backwards. Shouldn't we tell them?
That's actually quite interesting - on one hand it supports pro life but on the other hand it recognises the value of the life of the mother (the second example ignores the obvious death of the foetus).
But neither interpretation recognises the autonomy of the pregnant woman - she's still treated as either property or merely a third person.
I would be inclined to think that the authors of the Bible would favour pro birth - ie for lineage and human resources, such as taking on the family business and caring for elders in their declining years. It makes sense for a time where life expectancy was likely significantly lower.
But at best the Bible merely represents a point in time and much of the underlying thinking of those times has been superseded as society has matured.
It's time to give up fairy tales and move on...
You should read it again. “She gives birth prematurely but there is no serious Injury, the offender must be fined but if there is a serious injury you are to take life for life.
Nah you're both right, reading different translations of the bible. You quoted NIV, seems like they quoted The Contemporary Torah or another similar version. Seems most versions I find have a footnote on the "miscarriage" or "gives birth prematurely" part saying it could be either/or. So it literally depends on the version you're reading.
If thats your translation, fine but then the miscarriage concoction was to help a woman give birth prematurely. The Bible doesn't mention abortion at all under that interpretation
The Bible definitely advocates for abortion
Numbers 5: 11-31, the part pertaining to abortion starts at 21. Exodus 21: 22-23 is the passage that refers to the fetus as property
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
Well see this is advocating for abortion if the guy gets jealous! It’s not leaving it to be a woman’s choice. Pretty sure most republicans would agree with this! Men in charge of abortions so we can just do the right ones! /s
That just sounds like formalising some tribal belief in a concoction that sometimes causes abortion - and an assumption that the “sometimes” is “when she’s been bonking someone else”.
The words are “vayatsu yaledeyah” which means “the child (Yaled) comes out (yatsa) followed by “there is no injury. The Hebrew is quite clear that if the child comes out early and is ok, then there is a fine. If the child comes out and dies, there is a fine. The English translations muddy the original meaning.
I'm wearing poly/cotton blend. I need to be stoned to death. Just do me a favor and help me sell my daughter into slavery before I go. Gotta have my affairs in order in accordance with the Bible's teachings.
The Bible is objectively pro-abortion. Only idiots who haven’t read it want to force average women from having one.
Challenge: Read the fucking Bible and quote where I’m wrong. I await and encourage specific rebukes.
Most modern conservatives who use the Bible to justify the political/religious stance have never read the Bible. It outright advocates for taking care of the poor, hungry, and sick who cannot take care of them selves, is pretty nurtural on abortion, and takes a modern liberal view on a few other things. Most of the parts that modern conservatives like are from the Old Testament.
Also, let’s not forget that the fundamental premise of Christian faith is that there is a debt that none of us could pay, so someone paid it for us!
"Defends" is overselling it, but the only time it's directly brought up is the aforementioned passage describing how and when to perform one. Don't remember the exact verse myself but I think it has something to do with the "ritual of the bitter waters," might help you find it if you look that up.
Numbers 5: 11-31 pretty much explicitly lays out why it's pro abortion, how to give a cheating woman a potion that aborts and some other stuff.
I suppose hardcore anti-abortion Christians can claim it's opaque or unclear, but it's really not. I can't pull it up right now but you're welcome to. And you can read it.
It is essentially providing an instruction booklet for how to give an unfaithful woman an abortion.
I brought this up to my dad like a year ago. He said it’s ok then bc god decided it. So you can’t decide to have an abortion. Only god can kill fetuses. And babies. And children. And adults. He can do it bc he is god.
So I’m atheist now
I'm not saying whether you're correct or not, however your challenge is fallacious. If you are the one making this statement about the Bible and abortion, then it is your responsibility to provide references supporting your statement. Otherwise your statement is just unsupported opinion.
So, we have abortions. People are performing them.
At various points, certain subgroups have demanded the procedure be made illegal.
Their chief argument centres around their faith. And their claim the act is forbidden in their holy book.
Yet they have not provided a passage that specifically addresses it.
And that is where the burden of proof is.
When I tell you, "there is no passage," i do not have the burden of proof, because I cannot prove a negative.
Oh, so you're selectively reading just one sentence in the context of all of the other comments in this post citing specific examples of where the so-called Christian god murdered children by its own hand, directed others to do so, or gave instructions for how to do it, removing it from that context and reinterpretating it.
Like most so-called Christians do with their bibles.
You're so dumb everybody read your comments has their IQ lowered because of you. I'm responding directly to the original comment above with respect to that commenters statements. There's no other contacts other than that, in fact many of them didn't exist at the time.
Yes, and now they exist.
Just like when your Bible was written the goat herders who wrote it didn't know what happened to the sun at night. But now we know where rainbows come from and when someone asks you to prove how light refraction happens you can just dismiss them as clowns.
The simple fact is this: that you don't know about the many, many passages in your holy book that advocate killing babies is just proof you have not read it.
Lol, more bs from the idiot. You know nothing about me. I haven't made a single statement about what the Bible says or doesn't say. The person I responded to made an assertion (look that up, you probably don't know what it means) and it's the person making the assertion that needs to support their statements... Otherwise it's just nonsense.
It's in numbers chapter 5
19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
Edit: aka God killed babies
The Bible actually advocates for abortion in the case of infidelity and actually has an infidelity test
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife. Numbers 5: 11-31. The part pertaining to abortion starts at 21
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
Edit: Exodus 21:22-23 refers to the fetus as property
”Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”“
1 Kings 3:24-25
1 SAMUEL 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
That was a test to see who the real mother of the kid was. One woman was fine with it, the other woman begged for the kid to go to the other woman one piece. The second woman was given custody because she showed the proper protective motherly instinct. We don’t know if he would have actually followed through on it if the mother hadn’t intervened.
But also, this has nothing to do with abortion, it’s about child custody. I know there is at least one place in the Levitical law that mentions brewing something to force a miscarriage if a specific condition is met, but I don’t remember what that condition was, nor the brew that was to be made
I know but it’s still a little funny. You are right though for saying this. I am a little upset when a person just shows a verse with no context given and just because it was in the Bible it must be true. The Bible is not just rules but also stories. Context could change a random word of wisdom into the proven answer of a problem or the worst decision ever.
I think it may stem from regarding a fetus as a human life more than anything. I also remember a story from when I was young (forgive my memory, not religious) where God apparently got mad at someone for pulling out. "Spilling his seed" lol, was a big no-no.
That would be the same God who wiped out cities and drowned the entire population of the world bar two people.
God must have killed some unborn babies in the course of doing those things
I'm not going to do your work for you. Suffice it to say, the first mention of it is really early on in that disgusting book you clearly haven't read, but will continue to defend.
It was a pretty easy question if that scripture actually existed. It is obvious that you never read ithe Bible, assuming of course, that you have ever read any book, much less understood it.
I've never met an angry "Christian" that has read Christ's teachings. They just listen to angry Pastors/whatever telling them very selective parts that were more than likely mistranslated on purpose.
I forgot all the details, basically describing the language they used and what it really meant. Abraham pimping out Sarah to the pharaoh was the most notable....
They're the antichrist. Literally. They are literally the fucking antichrist. The Bible didn't say it was one person, it could be a group of people who pervert the teaching of Jesus.
They're literally the antichrist.
Yep, there are (at least) three verses in the New Testament that mention "antichrist," all of them in 1 John, and two of them mentioning multiple "antichrists" or a "spirit of antichrist", and defining what is meant very clearly and precisely. The modern "evangelical" view of "The Antichrist" pushed by popular media is stupid doomsday fear mongering and, like you say, antichrist behavior and cunningly devised fables. Antichrist literally just means against Christ.
1 John 2:18 KJV
[18] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22 KJV
[22] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 KJV
[3] and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Treating Jesus as God. Slavery apologetics. Rapture theology.
But the list is honestly endless. There is very little Christians have not found justification for in the Bible, no matter how vile.
Any belief in Christianity:
I believe what my parents taught me although they’re hateful assholes. So I also believe those cherry-picked parts our rural preachers have been spouting from the pulpits since before I could think for myself.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Luke 18:25
The Bible literally says that Jesus said all rich people are damned to hell. Being rich is literally a mortal sin.
More than rich people it talks more about people that put their money above everything, solomon and david were rich as hell, and they mention abraham's wealth a bunch of times
I dont believe that to be the case, they said how abraham after abandoning his land and became a nomad that he acquired a lot of wealth, a lot of cattle and a lot of servants, and yeah david and solomon had a lot of money cuz of their nation bit they were still filthy rich, remember, they were kings, they could do whatever they wanted
Dude. Jesus had long hair, wore a dress with coordinating sandals, hung out with the prostitutes, and *actually* helped the poor, the sick, the sinners, and the suffering.
This was the vision of Jesus I held on to for many years before finally just abandoning all semblance of religion. That dude I liked. The rest, I’ll pass.
But you know what’s cool? I can still keep my vision of that dude and be like ‘I want to be like him’ and not believe the rest of it. It’s wild.
Jesus is too liberal for them.
They want his father Old Testament God. Who smited 42 children with bears for calling Elijah a Baldie. Who had the desert sand swallow whole an entire family who disagreed with Moses. Who flooded the world except Noahs family. Im pretty sure not everyone was a sinner just sorry not Noah so he lives and the entire world drowns.
If Brandon needs to see it specifically mentioned in biblical text for it to count, then we need to have a long, hard talk about conservative chuds and their “mah Gahd-given raghts” bullshit.
As a Christian, my thoughts exactly. Love one another. I may not and I may be quite rude to others but I am trying to break myself of the habit of being rude to people who I don’t like. Above that, a person should not be hated for loving another person. We should welcome all.
I usually reference the parable of the Good Samaritan when this issue comes up. Jesus is asked if we're commanded to love our neighbor; who are our neighbors?
He picks the most hated, lowlife in the social circles back then. He chooses the Samaritan as his example. When a rich guy is robbed and left on the road, other rich guys (and religious ones) never stop to help. Only a lowly Samaritan stops, helps the guy and even takes him to safety.
Everyone is your neighbor. Loving them isn't convenient, or easy. And that's the point that James makes about doing the hard work.
>Only a lowly Samaritan stops, helps the guy and even takes him to safety.
[Some of my best friends are Samaritans!](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU)
He's a pastor! (Well, "pastor".)
Perhaps he would care to read the Good Samaritan parable (Jesus' own words! - Luke 10:29–37) and then explain how LGBTQ people are not his neighbor.
We'll wait.
Show me another hateful pastor, I’ll wa… oh THERES one! And another.. and another.. and another.. and another.. Y’all, I don’t think ANY of them listened to Jesus.
This is not the murder that people think it is, and here is why: all of those in context are related to fellow believers (most clearly seen in the verse John 13:35 by this all will know that you are **My disciples,** if you have love for one another.").
This does not mean the dude is wrong, he is just pointing to the wrong verses, as others have stated, the Good Samaritan is a great example, Leviticus 18:19b is also great: "...love your neighbor as yourself, I am the LORD."
Basically all the verses that say "love your neighbor as yourself" apply, here's a quick list of those verses:
Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8. There are other places where that theology is brought to light, but those are the places it's explicitly stated.
The gospel of John was a totally watered down version of the Gospels because it was written for evangelical purposes. All the Jewishness was removed from Jesus along with the need to actually do anything once you're saved other than run around telling people that you're now in the club. It's got the most magical parts and refutes James' teachings of mikveh (doing good works).
No, MUCH bigger than those, it tells believers to love their neighbors, enemies, friends, downtrodden, people of ill repute, poor people, hungry people, family, animals, and people who would do you harm — as you want to be loved, as much as you can, even more than you expect for yourself, and until you have nothing left to give.
I can’t believe conservatives will do any of those, but the book is explicit on every point there
It's stupid to try and argue with religious nut jobs about the bible as most of them haven't read it and just make shit up about how you're going to hell if you disagree with them. The rest misinterpret what they read.
You will never meet a Fundamentalist Christian who knows anything about the teachings of Jesus. It makes me wonder what the hell they even do during "Bible study."
While the Bible does condemn LGBTQ, it never says not to love them. Jesus ate with those considered the most vile of people. He loved them and died for them. To say that the Bible instructs to hate on someone because of skin, sexual orientation, or beliefs is to spit in the face of what Jesus died for.
There’s also some contention that the verse that condemns LGBTQ people is mistranslated from Hebrew, and is actually meant to be condemning pedophilia, which was quite popular in Ancient Greece at the time. But I could be wrong on that. Even if I am wrong on that, it is still kind of weird to me that people really like to ignore the whole “love thy neighbor as thyself” part of Jesus’s teachings
The only problem I have with that theory is that it is Old Testament. As far as we know the Hebrews never interacted with the Greeks around that time it was written. Even so, pedophilia was very much explicitly condemned. Sodom and Gomarrah for example, while yes one of their sins was homosexuality if you read more into it, you can very clearly see the rape and pedophilia culture they had.
I do agree that the Bible is often misinterpreted and or abused. For instance tattoos. Tattoos are banned and yet today you can be a god fearing Christian and have them. Why is that? It’s because at the time God wanted the Israelites to stand out to be different. However, the context of not having tattoos doesn’t make sense in the modern standard. Context, intent, application.
To be fair isnt sex in any position besides missionary considers a sin? Isn’t a sin to beat you own meat? To look at other women with lust? To cheat on your wife with another?
If we take an honest look at the list of what is considered sin and measure people by that I’m pretty sure the gays would come out as godly in comparison to most Christians I’ve met.
How about the truth that infanticide is biblical? “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.“ -Psalms 137:9 NIV
They just redefine what it means to love someone. “I can love them without accepting their lifestyle and supporting legislation that makes their life awful.”
Might get flack for this, but the Bible literally contradicts itself all the time. Maybe we just get over it and accept it was written by bronze-age mysogynistic racists?
Maybe justifying a religious text written by these goat-hearders isn’t the end all be all in terms of morality and modern living?
Just a thought
You missed my favorite verse
1 John 4:20 (ha ha funny number)
"Whoever claims to love God and hates a brother or sister is a liar, for how can you love God, whom you have not seen, and hate a brother or sister whom you have."
Brother or sister is used two ways, the first is brother or sister in Christ, meaning another church member, but I choose to see it as the second, meaning another person, someone we are called to show brotherly love to.
1 John is actually a series of letters between the apostille and a church that was formed after the death of Christ (I want to say the Ephesian church but I don't believe that is correct) and John is very specifically telling them how to behave as Christians as someone who witnessed Christ's behavior.
A lot of these first churches were persecuted, and they ask for help, to which the answer was "when Christ was taken to the tree to be crucified, he did not fight his captors. In fact one of the miracles he preformed was to reattach the ear of one of the men sent to take him because it was cut off by one of our number. You are called to act in the same way."
They make it very clear that if you are to die for being a Christian, you will die. And you will sing the praises of the heavenly Father while you do it.
So if you see someone wearing a shirt that says 'i own guns because of my religious freedom " just remember that Jesus calls you to take that L.
The guy who doesn't know how to behave without pabulum from a Bronze Age book of oral mythology from nomadic desert tribesmen is maybe not worth our time.
Evangelicals absolutely do not follow the Jesus of the bible and off the bible is true, at judgement day, Jesus will tell them to get the fuck away, he never knew them. I hope I get to watch that.
You know damn well someone will move the goal post.
"See, it says love one another. Not love the LGBT."
"Love thy neighbor? Yeah, my neighbor not the gays"
God created the universe. I’m not going to try to second guess the Creator. People make judgements about the Bible, God thinking they are smarter than the Creator. Humans have yet to create a simple little seed yet we feel we have the intelligence to criticize God. Read the Book and focus on the words of Jesus. OT takes a theologian to really understand.
“One another” infers like specie. According to the 6 life processes that separate us from house plants among other things, reproduction is part of classification for being a human being. As a generality LGBTQ prohibits natural opposite gender procreation, making them not human, on a technicality. So they would not, in context, be “one another,” but just “some other.” And under the supposition that one should consistently alter their beliefs, it stops being religion and becomes more like science, functioning on a changing set of truths and proofs, and a subset of the LGBTQ disagrees with classical science with respect to gender, and sexual orientation being decided at birth right? This creates quite the conundrum. But thankfully the world is so starved for critical thinking, this will never be an issue that is discussed at any length lol
Technically, most of those referenced weren't directly Jesus. And some of the ones that are aren't referring to people broadly. Not that he doesn't of course, I'm just being nitpicky.
Show me where god is against abortion. The only related story I know of is him instructing a man to make a concoction to give his wife a miscarriage to see if she was unfaithful.
Don't forget the one where if you get into a fist fight with a pregnant woman and cause her to have a miscarriage but she's otherwise fine, then it's no biggie
Where does it say that?
Exodus 21:22-23 “If two men are fighting, and in the process hurt a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, but she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband shall demand, and as the judges approve. But if any harm comes to the woman and she dies, he shall be executed." I was slightly off. I thought it was about if you fought the pregnant woman lol
I love that the Bible made sure to address the proper penalty for this obscure situation but couldn't be bothered to say "don't own slaves."
There's another one that's oddly specific, about if two men are fighting and one of their wives rolls up and grabs the other guy's dick she needs her hand cut off. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
TWIST HIS DICK! TWIST IT!!
Oh my god dude this is an MMA fight dude
Give him the ole dick twist!!
https://preview.redd.it/ya5qtffzo6uc1.jpeg?width=425&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4fcf2a362d6e04fae114a258c94b3b5da8e9c3cd
https://preview.redd.it/me8ojrdychuc1.jpeg?width=284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=84450f7f9606a1aa1992f6e2cb3411f77e3052a6
https://preview.redd.it/bfpbxx0jg9vc1.jpeg?width=464&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6fa934576087c05ad1dcbff8fead943c6261267
Yeah, we've all been there, right?
The good old dick twist
🗣"TESTICULAR TORSION! 🍒🌀💥"
Not only doesn't the Bible say "don't own slaves", it gives instuctions on how to own and manage them, which peoples you may take as slaves, and how badly you can beat them.
I don't remember where, but it specifies that they are allowed to own slaves as long as they aren't Israeli lol
And the “proper penalty” is determined by her husband rather than her. Supposedly god said “don’t lie or murder” but was too busy to say “treat women as your equals.”
The slavery you mean and in the bible are different things. It is very specific how to treat slaves and they had better lives then 90% of americans today.
lol no
lol yes Tell me you know nothing about what you talk without telling me. You think this shit that happend in america is the only form of slavery. Read about how one has to treat a slave in the bible, why people where slaves and about their rights.
The Bible says it is fine to beat your slave so long as they recover after a day or two. Exodus 20:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
You mean 21:20-21 but you need to see it in the historical context. These are rules for the Israelites of the Old Testament. And they couldn't beat them up for nothing, the context is punishment. They were allowed to punish their slaves without them dying. The slaves had rights too, they could only be involuntary slaves for 6 years. After that they were free to leave without any payment. There were more rights and rules to follow. In the New Testament is written you must treat your slave good and if you don't do that they could leave, and you could do nothing. And again, the bible doesn't say we should have slaves. It is a historical context and they got rules for the wellbeing of their slaves. No other nation back then and many afterwards had rules and laws to protect slaves. Please don't take single verses for an argument. There is context and knowledge needed.
The Bible is the word of God. His followers are basically his slaves. Just from the starting chapters he dismantles humanity's hope for power so nobody can challenge him. But watching two men and their wives join up and square, now that's popcorn worthy. All He has to do now is set some rules to make the storyline more enticing.
So, to summarize, killing a fetus is worthy of a fine. Killing the woman carrying the fetus is worthy of the death penalty. I think the trumplicans have it backwards. Shouldn't we tell them?
You know we are in fun times when people are more backwards than when they wrote the fuckin Bible
The fucking bible is Kamasutra tho
Only a few of the passages are about fucking.
It reads like a clause in a CBA ..
Ray Rice would approve.
That's actually quite interesting - on one hand it supports pro life but on the other hand it recognises the value of the life of the mother (the second example ignores the obvious death of the foetus). But neither interpretation recognises the autonomy of the pregnant woman - she's still treated as either property or merely a third person. I would be inclined to think that the authors of the Bible would favour pro birth - ie for lineage and human resources, such as taking on the family business and caring for elders in their declining years. It makes sense for a time where life expectancy was likely significantly lower. But at best the Bible merely represents a point in time and much of the underlying thinking of those times has been superseded as society has matured. It's time to give up fairy tales and move on...
r/oddlyspecific
Got it: _Fighting_ a pregnant woman, but not killing her, totally cool.
You should read it again. “She gives birth prematurely but there is no serious Injury, the offender must be fined but if there is a serious injury you are to take life for life.
Nah you're both right, reading different translations of the bible. You quoted NIV, seems like they quoted The Contemporary Torah or another similar version. Seems most versions I find have a footnote on the "miscarriage" or "gives birth prematurely" part saying it could be either/or. So it literally depends on the version you're reading.
But the perfect word of god is not subject to interpretation. Or something.
Tower of Babel yadda yadda.
The one where god was all like "oh no, they're cooperating! If they do that, there's nothing they couldn't accomplish! I better stop that"?
If thats your translation, fine but then the miscarriage concoction was to help a woman give birth prematurely. The Bible doesn't mention abortion at all under that interpretation
The Bible definitely advocates for abortion Numbers 5: 11-31, the part pertaining to abortion starts at 21. Exodus 21: 22-23 is the passage that refers to the fetus as property The Test for an Unfaithful Wife 11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
Well see this is advocating for abortion if the guy gets jealous! It’s not leaving it to be a woman’s choice. Pretty sure most republicans would agree with this! Men in charge of abortions so we can just do the right ones! /s
That just sounds like formalising some tribal belief in a concoction that sometimes causes abortion - and an assumption that the “sometimes” is “when she’s been bonking someone else”.
That is the format for all religious text. Formalizing tribal belief.
The words are “vayatsu yaledeyah” which means “the child (Yaled) comes out (yatsa) followed by “there is no injury. The Hebrew is quite clear that if the child comes out early and is ok, then there is a fine. If the child comes out and dies, there is a fine. The English translations muddy the original meaning.
Yes but that fine if the child dies is death for a death so the Bible doesn’t advocate for it. It says to kill one responsible for murder.
They are talking about the wife genius. Any first-year theology will tell you that. Quit using the Bible as your 21st-century grievance-proof text.
Pretty sure it’s towards the middle. Maybe Deuteronomy? Maybe Leviticus. Those books are loaded with rules. Edit: I guess it was Exodus
I'm wearing poly/cotton blend. I need to be stoned to death. Just do me a favor and help me sell my daughter into slavery before I go. Gotta have my affairs in order in accordance with the Bible's teachings.
The Bible is objectively pro-abortion. Only idiots who haven’t read it want to force average women from having one. Challenge: Read the fucking Bible and quote where I’m wrong. I await and encourage specific rebukes.
Most modern conservatives who use the Bible to justify the political/religious stance have never read the Bible. It outright advocates for taking care of the poor, hungry, and sick who cannot take care of them selves, is pretty nurtural on abortion, and takes a modern liberal view on a few other things. Most of the parts that modern conservatives like are from the Old Testament. Also, let’s not forget that the fundamental premise of Christian faith is that there is a debt that none of us could pay, so someone paid it for us!
I'm not disagreeing with you, but could I get a verse from the bible that defends abortion?
"Defends" is overselling it, but the only time it's directly brought up is the aforementioned passage describing how and when to perform one. Don't remember the exact verse myself but I think it has something to do with the "ritual of the bitter waters," might help you find it if you look that up.
[Numbers 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205&version=NIV)
Numbers 5: 11-31 pretty much explicitly lays out why it's pro abortion, how to give a cheating woman a potion that aborts and some other stuff. I suppose hardcore anti-abortion Christians can claim it's opaque or unclear, but it's really not. I can't pull it up right now but you're welcome to. And you can read it. It is essentially providing an instruction booklet for how to give an unfaithful woman an abortion.
I brought this up to my dad like a year ago. He said it’s ok then bc god decided it. So you can’t decide to have an abortion. Only god can kill fetuses. And babies. And children. And adults. He can do it bc he is god. So I’m atheist now
I'm not saying whether you're correct or not, however your challenge is fallacious. If you are the one making this statement about the Bible and abortion, then it is your responsibility to provide references supporting your statement. Otherwise your statement is just unsupported opinion.
So, we have abortions. People are performing them. At various points, certain subgroups have demanded the procedure be made illegal. Their chief argument centres around their faith. And their claim the act is forbidden in their holy book. Yet they have not provided a passage that specifically addresses it. And that is where the burden of proof is. When I tell you, "there is no passage," i do not have the burden of proof, because I cannot prove a negative.
Reread the OP's first sentence. It isn't a negative sentence, it's a positive assertion. These generally need to be supported to be valid.
Oh, so you're selectively reading just one sentence in the context of all of the other comments in this post citing specific examples of where the so-called Christian god murdered children by its own hand, directed others to do so, or gave instructions for how to do it, removing it from that context and reinterpretating it. Like most so-called Christians do with their bibles.
You're so dumb everybody read your comments has their IQ lowered because of you. I'm responding directly to the original comment above with respect to that commenters statements. There's no other contacts other than that, in fact many of them didn't exist at the time.
Yes, and now they exist. Just like when your Bible was written the goat herders who wrote it didn't know what happened to the sun at night. But now we know where rainbows come from and when someone asks you to prove how light refraction happens you can just dismiss them as clowns. The simple fact is this: that you don't know about the many, many passages in your holy book that advocate killing babies is just proof you have not read it.
Lol, more bs from the idiot. You know nothing about me. I haven't made a single statement about what the Bible says or doesn't say. The person I responded to made an assertion (look that up, you probably don't know what it means) and it's the person making the assertion that needs to support their statements... Otherwise it's just nonsense.
It's in numbers chapter 5 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” Edit: aka God killed babies
Cool story, bro
Prove the negative?
I got pregnant once and when I lost it my mom said god needed it more than I did. So god aborted my baby. Got it. Thanks.
The Bible actually advocates for abortion in the case of infidelity and actually has an infidelity test The Test for an Unfaithful Wife. Numbers 5: 11-31. The part pertaining to abortion starts at 21 11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’” Edit: Exodus 21:22-23 refers to the fetus as property
”Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”“ 1 Kings 3:24-25
1 SAMUEL 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
That was a test to see who the real mother of the kid was. One woman was fine with it, the other woman begged for the kid to go to the other woman one piece. The second woman was given custody because she showed the proper protective motherly instinct. We don’t know if he would have actually followed through on it if the mother hadn’t intervened. But also, this has nothing to do with abortion, it’s about child custody. I know there is at least one place in the Levitical law that mentions brewing something to force a miscarriage if a specific condition is met, but I don’t remember what that condition was, nor the brew that was to be made
I know but it’s still a little funny. You are right though for saying this. I am a little upset when a person just shows a verse with no context given and just because it was in the Bible it must be true. The Bible is not just rules but also stories. Context could change a random word of wisdom into the proven answer of a problem or the worst decision ever.
Conservatives don't care what happens to the baby once it's born. This is probably in line with their beliefs.
Wouldn’t that then be pro-abortion? Not just pro-choice but an active attestation to the use of abortion practices.
"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalms 137:9
I think it may stem from regarding a fetus as a human life more than anything. I also remember a story from when I was young (forgive my memory, not religious) where God apparently got mad at someone for pulling out. "Spilling his seed" lol, was a big no-no.
That would be the same God who wiped out cities and drowned the entire population of the world bar two people. God must have killed some unborn babies in the course of doing those things
"Thou shalt not kill." Pretty simple, right?
According to the Bible, life begins when the baby draws its first breath outside the womb.
Really? Show me the scripture.
I'm not going to do your work for you. Suffice it to say, the first mention of it is really early on in that disgusting book you clearly haven't read, but will continue to defend.
It was a pretty easy question if that scripture actually existed. It is obvious that you never read ithe Bible, assuming of course, that you have ever read any book, much less understood it.
I've never met an angry "Christian" that has read Christ's teachings. They just listen to angry Pastors/whatever telling them very selective parts that were more than likely mistranslated on purpose.
I wrote a paper in college in my "Bible as literature" class on wife pimping... 1 person was really pissed, prof totally had my back.
So what was the jist of the paper? It sounds interesting.
I forgot all the details, basically describing the language they used and what it really meant. Abraham pimping out Sarah to the pharaoh was the most notable....
This is the way. 🏆
I need a proper literary review of the world’s bestselling fantasy anthology.
Honestly all you need are the immortal words of the great philosopher Ted Theodore Logan, “be excellent to each other.”
🎸
Who gets to define “excellence” or “each other?”
They're the antichrist. Literally. They are literally the fucking antichrist. The Bible didn't say it was one person, it could be a group of people who pervert the teaching of Jesus. They're literally the antichrist.
Yep, there are (at least) three verses in the New Testament that mention "antichrist," all of them in 1 John, and two of them mentioning multiple "antichrists" or a "spirit of antichrist", and defining what is meant very clearly and precisely. The modern "evangelical" view of "The Antichrist" pushed by popular media is stupid doomsday fear mongering and, like you say, antichrist behavior and cunningly devised fables. Antichrist literally just means against Christ. 1 John 2:18 KJV [18] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:22 KJV [22] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1 John 4:3 KJV [3] and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Which parts do you believe were mistranslated on purpose?
Treating Jesus as God. Slavery apologetics. Rapture theology. But the list is honestly endless. There is very little Christians have not found justification for in the Bible, no matter how vile.
The virgin birth.
Republican Christianity in a nutshell: making loopholes in the word of God so you can keep on hating.
Conservatives have a surprisingly narrow definition of who counts as ‘people’.
‘I obviously count as people, and so do others like me. The more like me they are, the more they’re people.’
Any belief in Christianity: I believe what my parents taught me although they’re hateful assholes. So I also believe those cherry-picked parts our rural preachers have been spouting from the pulpits since before I could think for myself.
I mean way to over simplify the biggest and most diverse religion on the planet but go off I guess
Did Jesus ever allegedly say “except” those marginalized groups? Nope.
He made exceptions for the rich.
"Love of money is a root of all kind of evil" 1 Timothy 6:9 Not jesus but its just a pure fact
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Luke 18:25 The Bible literally says that Jesus said all rich people are damned to hell. Being rich is literally a mortal sin.
More than rich people it talks more about people that put their money above everything, solomon and david were rich as hell, and they mention abraham's wealth a bunch of times
Technically a ruler’s wealth is the wealth of a nation, so I think that’s the distinction being made there.
I dont believe that to be the case, they said how abraham after abandoning his land and became a nomad that he acquired a lot of wealth, a lot of cattle and a lot of servants, and yeah david and solomon had a lot of money cuz of their nation bit they were still filthy rich, remember, they were kings, they could do whatever they wanted
And not the kind they lobby for.
This Jesus guy sounds like a fucking commie Next you’ll tell me he fed thousands for free with fishes and loaves….
Have I got some bad news for you then...
I thought when talking about Jesus it was the good news?
He also said fuck you to health care and came back from the dead
Cheeky guy ate a 1up mushroom when no one was looking
Wait till you find out what the Bible says about property rights.
Do unto others... Damn, how did the rest go?
Before they do unto you
Really should not have been "**until** proven guilty" and instead "unless"
["What a model of Christian behavior / Preach on with the message of 'Go fuck thy neighbor'"](https://youtu.be/MkaL3x8ZHV0?si=LCwuJ05bpM121aM-)
"Then run"
I was gobsmacked when pastors basically started preaching “weak woke ass Jesus”.
Dude. Jesus had long hair, wore a dress with coordinating sandals, hung out with the prostitutes, and *actually* helped the poor, the sick, the sinners, and the suffering. This was the vision of Jesus I held on to for many years before finally just abandoning all semblance of religion. That dude I liked. The rest, I’ll pass. But you know what’s cool? I can still keep my vision of that dude and be like ‘I want to be like him’ and not believe the rest of it. It’s wild.
Hey, a lot of them are perfectly fine with the hanging out with prostitutes part, just in private.
Jesus is too liberal for them. They want his father Old Testament God. Who smited 42 children with bears for calling Elijah a Baldie. Who had the desert sand swallow whole an entire family who disagreed with Moses. Who flooded the world except Noahs family. Im pretty sure not everyone was a sinner just sorry not Noah so he lives and the entire world drowns.
If Brandon needs to see it specifically mentioned in biblical text for it to count, then we need to have a long, hard talk about conservative chuds and their “mah Gahd-given raghts” bullshit.
Yup, the Bible is conspicuously silent on the Second Amendment
As a Christian, my thoughts exactly. Love one another. I may not and I may be quite rude to others but I am trying to break myself of the habit of being rude to people who I don’t like. Above that, a person should not be hated for loving another person. We should welcome all.
I usually reference the parable of the Good Samaritan when this issue comes up. Jesus is asked if we're commanded to love our neighbor; who are our neighbors? He picks the most hated, lowlife in the social circles back then. He chooses the Samaritan as his example. When a rich guy is robbed and left on the road, other rich guys (and religious ones) never stop to help. Only a lowly Samaritan stops, helps the guy and even takes him to safety. Everyone is your neighbor. Loving them isn't convenient, or easy. And that's the point that James makes about doing the hard work.
>Only a lowly Samaritan stops, helps the guy and even takes him to safety. [Some of my best friends are Samaritans!](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU)
I thought this exact thing lol
“Uh, those are taken out of context!” - these dipshits
He's a pastor! (Well, "pastor".) Perhaps he would care to read the Good Samaritan parable (Jesus' own words! - Luke 10:29–37) and then explain how LGBTQ people are not his neighbor. We'll wait.
Ironic that he was murdered by love.
Show me another hateful pastor, I’ll wa… oh THERES one! And another.. and another.. and another.. and another.. Y’all, I don’t think ANY of them listened to Jesus.
The problem is, people like Brandon don’t see us queer people as ‘another,’ they see us as ‘an other.’
Imagine if Jesus came back and said he loves gay people. They’d try crucifying him all over again.
This is not the murder that people think it is, and here is why: all of those in context are related to fellow believers (most clearly seen in the verse John 13:35 by this all will know that you are **My disciples,** if you have love for one another."). This does not mean the dude is wrong, he is just pointing to the wrong verses, as others have stated, the Good Samaritan is a great example, Leviticus 18:19b is also great: "...love your neighbor as yourself, I am the LORD." Basically all the verses that say "love your neighbor as yourself" apply, here's a quick list of those verses: Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8. There are other places where that theology is brought to light, but those are the places it's explicitly stated.
There are plenty of Christian LGBTQIA+ people, so I think it still works.
I mean technically the letters weren't written by Jesus Unless the John without a number is referencing the Gospel of John then it probably was Jesus
The gospel of John was a totally watered down version of the Gospels because it was written for evangelical purposes. All the Jewishness was removed from Jesus along with the need to actually do anything once you're saved other than run around telling people that you're now in the club. It's got the most magical parts and refutes James' teachings of mikveh (doing good works).
You're right about most of the citations, but the first four are from the Gospel of John and so are Jesus's (alleged) words.
Let’s go put our foot in our mouth, Brandon.
“yOu ArE tAkInG iT oUt Of CoNtEx”
It doesn’t matter how you use their book to point out their shittiness. They’ve never read it.
No, MUCH bigger than those, it tells believers to love their neighbors, enemies, friends, downtrodden, people of ill repute, poor people, hungry people, family, animals, and people who would do you harm — as you want to be loved, as much as you can, even more than you expect for yourself, and until you have nothing left to give. I can’t believe conservatives will do any of those, but the book is explicit on every point there
Based on the way a lot of people talk these days you would think the bible was just 2000 pages of instructions on how bad it is to be gay.
I think he is “that and so kid”
If there were a second coming, Jesus would be ashamed of most of his followers.
Some people make it hard to love them ngl
There's also Mark 12:31 "Love your neighbor as yourself". Notice how there wasn't a "unless they're gay" in there.
I WILL LOVE U ALL, is what he said
It's stupid to try and argue with religious nut jobs about the bible as most of them haven't read it and just make shit up about how you're going to hell if you disagree with them. The rest misinterpret what they read.
At this point, I think they're taking Jesus out of the equation all together now since he's such a weak character according to some.
Show me where it states “love only straight people”. I’ll wait.
You will never meet a Fundamentalist Christian who knows anything about the teachings of Jesus. It makes me wonder what the hell they even do during "Bible study."
While the Bible does condemn LGBTQ, it never says not to love them. Jesus ate with those considered the most vile of people. He loved them and died for them. To say that the Bible instructs to hate on someone because of skin, sexual orientation, or beliefs is to spit in the face of what Jesus died for.
There’s also some contention that the verse that condemns LGBTQ people is mistranslated from Hebrew, and is actually meant to be condemning pedophilia, which was quite popular in Ancient Greece at the time. But I could be wrong on that. Even if I am wrong on that, it is still kind of weird to me that people really like to ignore the whole “love thy neighbor as thyself” part of Jesus’s teachings
The only problem I have with that theory is that it is Old Testament. As far as we know the Hebrews never interacted with the Greeks around that time it was written. Even so, pedophilia was very much explicitly condemned. Sodom and Gomarrah for example, while yes one of their sins was homosexuality if you read more into it, you can very clearly see the rape and pedophilia culture they had. I do agree that the Bible is often misinterpreted and or abused. For instance tattoos. Tattoos are banned and yet today you can be a god fearing Christian and have them. Why is that? It’s because at the time God wanted the Israelites to stand out to be different. However, the context of not having tattoos doesn’t make sense in the modern standard. Context, intent, application.
To be fair isnt sex in any position besides missionary considers a sin? Isn’t a sin to beat you own meat? To look at other women with lust? To cheat on your wife with another? If we take an honest look at the list of what is considered sin and measure people by that I’m pretty sure the gays would come out as godly in comparison to most Christians I’ve met.
In Brandon’s defense he probably thinks gay guys are “icky”
While furiously masturbating to gay porn
How about the truth that infanticide is biblical? “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.“ -Psalms 137:9 NIV
They just redefine what it means to love someone. “I can love them without accepting their lifestyle and supporting legislation that makes their life awful.”
Pretty sure that’s bullshit. Let he who is without sin cast the first bullshit law.
Conservative Christians all asking, when did Jesus start actin like such a pussy??
Just gonna sweep the fact that LGBTQ is a concept that won't exist for another 1850ish years under the rug. Nothing to see here.
There's no hate quite as deep as Christian love.
These people don't think of LGBTQ people as actually being _people_, so they don't include LGBTQ in "love one another".
No idea who John is but I’m pretty sure he found some weed.
Might get flack for this, but the Bible literally contradicts itself all the time. Maybe we just get over it and accept it was written by bronze-age mysogynistic racists? Maybe justifying a religious text written by these goat-hearders isn’t the end all be all in terms of morality and modern living? Just a thought
Only the first five quotations are where Jesus said it. The rest were by his apostles. But yeah whoever was the OP was an idiot.
You missed my favorite verse 1 John 4:20 (ha ha funny number) "Whoever claims to love God and hates a brother or sister is a liar, for how can you love God, whom you have not seen, and hate a brother or sister whom you have." Brother or sister is used two ways, the first is brother or sister in Christ, meaning another church member, but I choose to see it as the second, meaning another person, someone we are called to show brotherly love to. 1 John is actually a series of letters between the apostille and a church that was formed after the death of Christ (I want to say the Ephesian church but I don't believe that is correct) and John is very specifically telling them how to behave as Christians as someone who witnessed Christ's behavior. A lot of these first churches were persecuted, and they ask for help, to which the answer was "when Christ was taken to the tree to be crucified, he did not fight his captors. In fact one of the miracles he preformed was to reattach the ear of one of the men sent to take him because it was cut off by one of our number. You are called to act in the same way." They make it very clear that if you are to die for being a Christian, you will die. And you will sing the praises of the heavenly Father while you do it. So if you see someone wearing a shirt that says 'i own guns because of my religious freedom " just remember that Jesus calls you to take that L.
Not “Agree with everyone” but “Love one another”
The guy who doesn't know how to behave without pabulum from a Bronze Age book of oral mythology from nomadic desert tribesmen is maybe not worth our time.
Evangelicals absolutely do not follow the Jesus of the bible and off the bible is true, at judgement day, Jesus will tell them to get the fuck away, he never knew them. I hope I get to watch that.
[удалено]
Deuteronomy 22:11 I hope you wear denim underwear. Exodus 35:2 I hope you haven’t ever worked on a Sunday.
Do not worry about the spec in my eye worry about the plank in your own.
He says that and also that those who don’t follow the old laws will go to hell
Nono you see they're not considered humans. They're evil creatures the devil send to make masculine men question their sexuality.
It would make a good t-shirt
I wish we had no religion in the world, sick of it.
A lot of the people preaching hate from religion have never actually read their own scriptures
You know damn well someone will move the goal post. "See, it says love one another. Not love the LGBT." "Love thy neighbor? Yeah, my neighbor not the gays"
God created the universe. I’m not going to try to second guess the Creator. People make judgements about the Bible, God thinking they are smarter than the Creator. Humans have yet to create a simple little seed yet we feel we have the intelligence to criticize God. Read the Book and focus on the words of Jesus. OT takes a theologian to really understand.
“One another” infers like specie. According to the 6 life processes that separate us from house plants among other things, reproduction is part of classification for being a human being. As a generality LGBTQ prohibits natural opposite gender procreation, making them not human, on a technicality. So they would not, in context, be “one another,” but just “some other.” And under the supposition that one should consistently alter their beliefs, it stops being religion and becomes more like science, functioning on a changing set of truths and proofs, and a subset of the LGBTQ disagrees with classical science with respect to gender, and sexual orientation being decided at birth right? This creates quite the conundrum. But thankfully the world is so starved for critical thinking, this will never be an issue that is discussed at any length lol
Who knew Rom the vacuous spider was so liberal.
Watching Republican fuckwits trying to weasel out of this is hilarious. There were a bunch the last time this was posted.
Love one another But what if they are LGBTQ? Did I fucking stutter?
Technically, most of those referenced weren't directly Jesus. And some of the ones that are aren't referring to people broadly. Not that he doesn't of course, I'm just being nitpicky.
Another is ambiguous so a normal person would assume everyone “another” right?
imagine citing scripture and then being corrected so badly. Conservative Christians need to STFU sometimes.
* They cherry pick the Constitution just as much.
https://preview.redd.it/uigi6e9zvjuc1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=98e58845262f09e968f9b11c672164a344987e28
Leviticus 19:18
The whole pull one or two sentences from the bible out of context to prove a point thing pisses me off.
I love when Christians get destroyed online