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.
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?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Some of the anti-homosexuality texts in the New Testament also have some missing context that isn’t really applicable to the homosexuality of today.
What was frowned upon in the age those texts were written was the ‘effeminizing’ effect of being submissive in sexual activity, which males in society of that time (in the Roman empire) were expected to be strong, hard, dominant penetrators (manly qualities), not weak-willed, soft, submissively penetrated (feminine qualities). Abandoning manly expectations in society for feminine sex acts was unforgivable. That expectation of social/sexual roles contributes to the homophobia and toxic masculinity today.
Another Greek word that has been difficult to translate is arsenokoitai, which has traditionally been translated as ‘homosexual’ (and used as a proof text for the Bible’s anti-homosexual stance), but later uses of the word seem to indicate it was ‘rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, or pimping’, which introduces an asymmetry of power of an abuser and the abused, which is far more problematic than homosexual activity.
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.
You’re giving transphobic bigots too much credit; no one reads a verse saying that eunuchs aren’t allowed in the temple and infers that it’s a sin to be trans.
They aren’t reading the Bible and then developing prejudices based on what it says; that’s not what’s happening here.
Instead, what they are doing is starting with the prejudices they already have and then fishing through the Bible trying to find anything that even remotely matches so they can twist it into a post-hoc justification.
In this specific case, that verse doesn’t justify their position in any way shape or form.
The only reason anyone would interpret that as condemnation of trans people is if they’re actively looking for excuses to condemn them.
First off, that verse is talking about eunuchs rather than trans people, which is actually a really important distinction.
Further, that verse doesn’t even say that being a eunuch is bad; it just says they’re not allowed to enter the temple. which, for what it’s worth, hasn’t even existed for thousands of years.
Moreover, it is immediately followed by a verse saying the same thing about anyone whose ancestors (up to 10 generations back) were illegitimate children.
So, you can’t interpret it as saying that it’s a sin to be trans unless you also interpret it as saying it’s a sin to have great-great-great grandparents who weren’t married.
You’re right that neither the Bible nor any other religious text is a legitimate reason to persecute people, but that’s not what’s going on here.
They aren’t motivated by what the Bible teaches, they’re motivated by bigotry and performing mental acrobatics to try to find anything in the Bible that they can somehow twist into an excuse for their bigotry.
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
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.
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?
Someone that follows the instructions of the book they believe in, where the book says to follow Every instruction.
Cool, that’s not what a Christian is. But that’s ok! You learnt something today!
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)
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.
The Catholic Church
Catholics and Christians, while similar, go to different churches. So despite the fact that:
“Of their local church” is what [you] clearly stated
You are in fact associating them with people who do not attend “their local church”.
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.
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
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
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.
“Man, how much waters did I have last night”
-Jesus (probably)
he can’t remember because he never existed
He probably existed and if he did was most likely a great speaker but his stories are at least massively embellished.
It is generally accepted that there was a person that the stories of Jesus were based off of that existed at that time. He has as much (if not more) evidence of his existence as most historical figures from around that era. If we decided that he didn’t have enough evidence, we would have to erase the vast majority of ancient history.
Now, that doesn’t mean that stories of his miracles are accepted as historical. Those are still a matter of faith.
There is next to no evidence of Jesus Christ unless you count Christian sources, which have a bit of a bias.
The Romans for example were big on book keeping, yet no mention of Jesus can be found.
The existence of Jesus is possible, but far from certain - of course that’s something Christians don’t like to hear and the Christian church actively fights.
Not sure what you’d expect to find? 2000 year old court records from an outlying province? A long form birth certificate? His tax returns?
I mean that’s kinda the point
In that case there are tons of historical figures that should be assumed to have not existed. If we had such high standards we would have to erase most of our ancient history as rumor.
You really think that after 2000 years that would have survived? How long do you think papyrus lasts? And where would they have stored? The middle east is well known to be geopolitically stable
I mean this is all supporting my point
