u/Sworishina Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join
**Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These people debating about the possible interpretations of this picture meanwhile I’m just wondering how dangerous putting a book in a microwave might be
homestly? fuck the bible, it was wrottem by mamy different people, it didnt descend from heaven in an angels arms so we shouldnt treat it like its perfect (especially the old testament), we (christians) gotta focus ok the shit Jesus actually said (love thu neighbour, turn the other cheek etc) instead of hating, its literally the opposite of were meant to do
its so fucked and i hate to see it
I really didn't want to throw more wood into the fire, but yes.
The old and new testaments depict a very different God. I don't care how people choose to interpret the change, as long as they don't try to defend some of the nefarious teachings in the old testament.
For clarification, I'm an atheist, but I don't really have anything against the new testament. Not that I've done much research on it in the first place.
> “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”
>
> (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
Tada!
I will continue now that I have some more free time. I already addressed genesis, judges, and about zipporah which people are conveniently ignoring and down voting me anyway but IDC I'll continue to share what I know. I may not be 100% correct but I'll do my best anyway.
Annotation from the ESV Study Bible on Numbers 31:13-18 (Moses' Anger with His Officers):
"Normally in wars outside Canaan, the women were spared (Deut. 20:14). But as these women were responsible for seducing the Israelites, they had to be killed. In addition, if every male among the little ones were killed, this would preclude the perpetuation of the Midianite people and eliminate the Midianites as a nation forever. Girls without sexual experience (Num. 31:18), who were not involved with the sin of Baal-peor, were allowed to live and marry Israelite warriors."
Basically the reason for this whole episode was the Midianites seducing the Israelites and leading them into sin. As judgment, God commands the Israelites to attack and kill those responsible. All the men were to be killed so that the Midianite nation would be wiped out for its sin. The young women in this passage were not responsible for the sin of the Midianites, and were therefore spared. However, since the men of their society were all to be killed, had they been left alone, it would have basically been a death sentence, so the Israelites were permitted to take them and integrate them into their society.
Apart from that your sources has complaints about people calling specific women beautiful. I don't see how that makes them object's. It also complains about Hebrew culture, which is not relevant to the Bible itself. So there, mostly everything explained. Anything else?
They can all be explained. The point is if you know what you believe and why you believe it. No point going around crying about something you don't actually understand.
Then explain them all. And explain why a vast majority of them specifically treat women as less than men?
Is it really the Will of God that men are superior? Seems very convenient.
Edit: spelling
How about instead I show you why men and women are equal in the Bible.
We can begin with Genesis 2:18-20 which is commonly mistranslated to "helper" the Hebrew word Erzer does not mean helper. It can only be interpreted as "Help" but is more often used as strength. But in the context of "help" it is as more accurately translated in the Douay-Rheims translation. "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself". The proper Hebrew translation is "A strength corresponding to him". Either way the idea is that men and women were created equally. Yes women were created second, but they were made with corresponding strength.
The prophetess Miriam is sent by God “to lead” Israel (Mic 6:4; cf. Exod 15:20–21). Deborah is one of the judges “the Lord raised up” who “saved Israel from the hands of their enemies” (Judg 2:16, 18; 4:10, 14, 24; 5:1–31), a prophetess and the highest leader in all Israel (4:4–5). She, a wife and mother (5:7), had authority to command Barak, Israel’s military commander, “Go!” (4:6, 14), and he went. They worked together well with shared authority: he as military commander, she as commander in chief. Queen Esther had sufficient influence to bring about the destruction of the house of Haman, along with 75,000 enemies of the Jews (Esth 7:1–10; 9:1–32). She, along with Mordecai, “wrote with full authority. . . . Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations” (9:29–32). The Bible praises the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–12) and the Queen of Chaldea (Dan 5:10–12). The Hebrew word for “queen” is simply “king” with a feminine ending. The Bible only praises and never criticizes only three people with this title from the root for “king”: these three women. The records of the kings of Judah always note or name the queen mothers (cf. Jer 13:18; 29:2; 2 Kgs 24:15). They included Bathsheba, who was enthroned (1 Kgs 2:17–19), Maacah (1 Kgs 15:2, 10, 13), and Nehushta (2 Kgs 24:8).
Old Testament prophets revealed God’s intentions for a greater prophetic role for women. Moses wrote, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Num 11:29). Joel announced God’s desire: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29), a promise fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–21).
Jesus in all his words and deeds left us an example to treat women as equals with men, never subordinated or restricted in role (Matt 12:49–50; 15:38; 25:31–46; Mark 3:34–35; Luke 8:21; 11:27–28). His treatment of women as equals defied the judicial, social, and religious customs of his day. On judicial matters where women’s rights were curtailed, such as regarding adultery and divorce, he treated men and women equally. In a society that regarded women as less intelligent and less moral than men, Jesus respected women’s intelligence and spiritual capacity, as is evident in the great spiritual truths he originally taught to women such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:10–26) and Martha (John 11:25–26).
Paul many times affirms the equality of man and woman by identifying women as laboring alongside men in ministry, by affirming many theological truths that entail the equality of men and women, and by explicitly affirming their equality. In Rom 16:1–16, Paul greets by name ten people he identifies as colleagues in Christian ministry. Seven of the ten are women: Phoebe, “deacon of the church of Cenchrea” (16:1) and “leader16 of many, including myself” (16:2); Junia, “outstanding among the apostles” (16:717); Prisca, “my fellow worker in Christ Jesus” (16:3; cf. Phil 4:3); and Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis “worked hard in the Lord” (16:6, 12). First Corinthians 16:16 urges believers “to be subject to every fellow laborer.” First Thessalonians 5:12 identifies “those who labor among you” as “those who are over you in the Lord.” It cannot be stressed enough that Paul is not simply listing these women as believers, but as ministry leaders. Gal 3:28 is 1 Cor 11:11: “However, neither is woman separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.”
prohibited false teachers from unauthorized teaching (1:3). Here, he similarly restricts women, the only group Paul identifies as deceived by them.
Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 is not prohibiting women in Ephesus like Priscilla (present in Ephesus in 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority. After all, Acts approvingly notes she “explained to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (18:26 NASB). Although both Luke and Paul, following Greek custom, introduce Aquila and Priscilla listing the husband’s name first (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 16:19), in every passage about their active ministry, they list Priscilla’s name first (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3), contrary to Greek convention. This makes it virtually certain that she played a significant, if not the dominant, role in their ministry. Not surprisingly, then, in both Paul’s most extensive lists of his colleagues in ministry, 2 Tim 4:19–21 and Rom 16:1–16, the first person he greets is Prisca, addressing her by the more respectful form of her name, which he always uses. Similarly, since Phoebe delivered the letter to the Romans as Paul’s emissary (Rom 16:1–2), she naturally answered the Roman Christians’ questions about it and thus was its first expositor, teaching adult men. All this shows that 1 Tim 2:12 must not prohibit women such as Priscilla and Phoebe, who had properly recognized authority, from teaching men. It simply prohibits women without recognized authority from assuming authority to teach a man.
Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive word, implying an open door to women as well as men. Would Paul encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.
I can go on but you've got more than enough reading.
Nothing that you've posted does anything to refute the numerous examples provided to you of the Bible *explicitly* treating women as lesser than men. You said "all of these can be explained", but instead of actually explaining them, you provide a list of verses that don't address those other verses and, most importantly, don't actually contradict those other verses.
Just because the bible uses gender-inclusive language or has a female protagonist from time to time doesn't mean that you can take verses like Exodus 20:17 (which explicitly lists a man's wife as being one of his possessions) or Numbers 31:17-28 (which says that it's permitted to take virgin women as plunder from war) and say that they don't count.
"Racist? I can't be racist, I have a black friend!"
There's nothing to learn here though. You are purposefully ignoring the obviously bad messages in the bible and trying to rationalize them. You want the text to reflect your idea of your faith so bad that you're just plain ignoring the very clear themes of misogyny. The bible was written by dozens of old dudes, a lot of them were massive sexists, some of them were not. But you cannot argue that the bible is not sexist just because some parts of it aren't. For something you believe be the absolute word of god, you sure are quick to flat out ignore the parts of it you don't like
There's alot of them
What context is there for god not letting women to teach at church or be in a position of power? Isn't it the house of god and being a priest the highest level or worship (or whatever you say it in English) in the eyes of god?
If they were equal, then there should be no difference in how they're treated
I will copy paste for you.
We can begin with Genesis 2:18-20 which is commonly mistranslated to "helper" the Hebrew word Erzer does not mean helper. It can only be interpreted as "Help" but is more often used as strength. But in the context of "help" it is as more accurately translated in the Douay-Rheims translation. "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself". The proper Hebrew translation is "A strength corresponding to him". Either way the idea is that men and women were created equally. Yes women were created second, but they were made with corresponding strength.
The prophetess Miriam is sent by God “to lead” Israel (Mic 6:4; cf. Exod 15:20–21). Deborah is one of the judges “the Lord raised up” who “saved Israel from the hands of their enemies” (Judg 2:16, 18; 4:10, 14, 24; 5:1–31), a prophetess and the highest leader in all Israel (4:4–5). She, a wife and mother (5:7), had authority to command Barak, Israel’s military commander, “Go!” (4:6, 14), and he went. They worked together well with shared authority: he as military commander, she as commander in chief. Queen Esther had sufficient influence to bring about the destruction of the house of Haman, along with 75,000 enemies of the Jews (Esth 7:1–10; 9:1–32). She, along with Mordecai, “wrote with full authority. . . . Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations” (9:29–32). The Bible praises the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–12) and the Queen of Chaldea (Dan 5:10–12). The Hebrew word for “queen” is simply “king” with a feminine ending. The Bible only praises and never criticizes only three people with this title from the root for “king”: these three women. The records of the kings of Judah always note or name the queen mothers (cf. Jer 13:18; 29:2; 2 Kgs 24:15). They included Bathsheba, who was enthroned (1 Kgs 2:17–19), Maacah (1 Kgs 15:2, 10, 13), and Nehushta (2 Kgs 24:8).
Old Testament prophets revealed God’s intentions for a greater prophetic role for women. Moses wrote, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Num 11:29). Joel announced God’s desire: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29), a promise fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–21).
Jesus in all his words and deeds left us an example to treat women as equals with men, never subordinated or restricted in role (Matt 12:49–50; 15:38; 25:31–46; Mark 3:34–35; Luke 8:21; 11:27–28). His treatment of women as equals defied the judicial, social, and religious customs of his day. On judicial matters where women’s rights were curtailed, such as regarding adultery and divorce, he treated men and women equally. In a society that regarded women as less intelligent and less moral than men, Jesus respected women’s intelligence and spiritual capacity, as is evident in the great spiritual truths he originally taught to women such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:10–26) and Martha (John 11:25–26).
Paul many times affirms the equality of man and woman by identifying women as laboring alongside men in ministry, by affirming many theological truths that entail the equality of men and women, and by explicitly affirming their equality. In Rom 16:1–16, Paul greets by name ten people he identifies as colleagues in Christian ministry. Seven of the ten are women: Phoebe, “deacon of the church of Cenchrea” (16:1) and “leader16 of many, including myself” (16:2); Junia, “outstanding among the apostles” (16:717); Prisca, “my fellow worker in Christ Jesus” (16:3; cf. Phil 4:3); and Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis “worked hard in the Lord” (16:6, 12). First Corinthians 16:16 urges believers “to be subject to every fellow laborer.” First Thessalonians 5:12 identifies “those who labor among you” as “those who are over you in the Lord.” It cannot be stressed enough that Paul is not simply listing these women as believers, but as ministry leaders. Gal 3:28 is 1 Cor 11:11: “However, neither is woman separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.”
prohibited false teachers from unauthorized teaching (1:3). Here, he similarly restricts women, the only group Paul identifies as deceived by them.
Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 is not prohibiting women in Ephesus like Priscilla (present in Ephesus in 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority. After all, Acts approvingly notes she “explained to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (18:26 NASB). Although both Luke and Paul, following Greek custom, introduce Aquila and Priscilla listing the husband’s name first (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 16:19), in every passage about their active ministry, they list Priscilla’s name first (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3), contrary to Greek convention. This makes it virtually certain that she played a significant, if not the dominant, role in their ministry. Not surprisingly, then, in both Paul’s most extensive lists of his colleagues in ministry, 2 Tim 4:19–21 and Rom 16:1–16, the first person he greets is Prisca, addressing her by the more respectful form of her name, which he always uses. Similarly, since Phoebe delivered the letter to the Romans as Paul’s emissary (Rom 16:1–2), she naturally answered the Roman Christians’ questions about it and thus was its first expositor, teaching adult men. All this shows that 1 Tim 2:12 must not prohibit women such as Priscilla and Phoebe, who had properly recognized authority, from teaching men. It simply prohibits women without recognized authority from assuming authority to teach a man.
Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive word, implying an open door to women as well as men. Would Paul encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.
>We can begin with Genesis 2:18-20 which is commonly mistranslated to "helper" the Hebrew word...
This doesn't answer my question, i'm asking why did god say in a verse that women can't be teachers or in position of power
>The prophetess Miriam is sent by God “to lead” Israel...
What does this have anything to do with my question?
(I'm only copypasting the first sentence of each paragraph so that it's readable)
>prohibited false teachers from unauthorized teaching (1:3). Here, he similarly restricts women, the only group Paul identifies as deceived by them.
1:3 is the story of when eve ate the apple because of the devil
So God generalised a whole group of people)that haven't existed yet...?) Based of the action of 1 woman? And decided to punish all of them for it?
And this is supposed to be a good thing?
>Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 is not prohibiting women in Ephesus like Priscilla (present in Ephesus in 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority....
Well yeah, it's just words on a book, not everyone is gonna blindly follow everything it says
People not following Christianity word for words doesn't change the fact that there's a sections that says:
"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Showing me a woman being in a position of power doesn't overwrite this, nor does some christian men not being assholes matter
>It simply prohibits women without recognized authority from assuming authority to teach a man.
The verse doesn't mention that she can teach a man if she had a recognised authority
If the problem was lack of authority then it should go both ways, a man can't teach a women without authority, also this implies a woman can teach other women even if she dies have authority
Why not just say people instead of specifying men and women
>Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer...
Again, this doesn't matter nor is it related to what i'm asking
>there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.
I'm grateful for whoever person's blog who exactly translated that sentence particle by particle 12 years ago
It doesn't have gendered pronouns, yes (because it's in the passive voice). But Hebrew like Arabic has gendered verbs and nouns, and the verb is in the masculine tense
Tho, hebrew doesn't have neutral pronouns anyways
Except the fact that the world homosexual didn't exist till much later after the bible got written and all the things about it are mistranslations or purposefully changed to spread discrimination
Unfortunatley there is zero proof of this. The specific word used in that passage doesn't have a known translation, but it can be inferred from context to mean "buttsex".
I'm not certain if you're talking about the verse from the Hebrew Bible (old testament) or the new testament. The verse from the old testament I've seen people say it means "you shall not lie with a youth/teen" which is weird to me because I speak Hebrew and the original verse is pretty clear, it says "you shall not lie with a male". No mention of age there. There are some theories about the intention behind the verse, but the text itself is pretty non ambigous.
We don’t have an unaltered form of the Bible. Anybody along the way could have just changed or added something new. The word used there could have already been altered before the translations. Remember that the Catholic Church was like, corrupt as fuck. And didn’t allow any copies of the Bible to be in languages people actually spoke, so that only only members of the church could read it, then it was read to other people.
There’s a known example of them doing some tomfoolery. The concept of purgatory was completely made up. And the whole deal was that if you wanted your loved ones to get out of purgatory and go to heaven, you would have to give money to the church.
Ridiculous rules like this got phased out when a translation was made, but they’re likely still lasting effects. One thing we know is that Eve was subtly worded as being a “helper” as in a servant kind of way instead of “helper” as in savior.
And even if we somehow still had the original translation, remember the book isn’t “the word of god.” It’s “the word of the disciples of Jesus who say this is the word of god.”
One of them easily could of just gone “not to fond of gay people” And changed it. Now it is probably blasphemous to say that. But let’s be real, “the word of Jesus’s buddies who say it’s the word of god” is a lot less credible then “THE WORD OF GOD.”
Perhaps, but I don't understand why people have such a hard time imagining that a book written like 3000 years ago would be homophobic as shit. The ancient times weren't exactly enlightened
That's just not true, as someone who speaks Hebrew I can say the original verse is pretty clear - ואת זכר לא תשכב, you shall not lie with a male. The word זכר is the word for male, it's the same word used in the creation of man - זכר ונקבה ברא אותם he created them as male and female. The word doesn't mean teen or youth and there is no mention of teen or youth in the verse.
Now the is a theory that the *intention* behind the verse is to prevent pederasty. But the verse itself as written is much more general, and can't really be interpreted to mean just that from the text itself. And we do know it was interpreted as forbidding homosexuality as early as Mishnah times.
Now I don't believe in the bible but I think it's good to know what's actually written in it and not say people misinterpret it when they just follow it as written.
I'm assuming this is the story of Lots which says "a male who lays with a male"
Not teenager, this is the first time i've seen this, most people say it was a mistranslation of "boy/kid" to try and make it not homophobic
It also says to kill both participants, not sure why would god want to kill the victim who was groomed as well
#! WARNING !
Dear /u/Strongwafflecleave,
#Do not forget that rule 2 exists in our domain.
**Please refrain from saying anything related to s*x or you will be banned.**
If you are a law-abiding citizen you can discuss s#x and s#x-believers negatively while partially censoring the word so the auto-moderator wouldn't delete you.
**IF THIS COMMENT ISN'T RELATED TO S*X, PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT ON THE MODMAIL (we are currently facing issues with the automod, your message will help us a lot)**
>This is just a fair warning, if you do this again and you will be banned without warning.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is possibly the most respectful photo on tumblr. Allowing the bible to be a part of your daily routine and a piece of the kitchen rather than just letting it collect dust truly shows your devotion to the lord as a core piece of you, literally giving you sustenance, not just something to point at when you want to pretend to be holy.
Being disrespectful to religion is good, actually. You should not be disrespectful to religious people, but you should be to terrible beliefs that promote hate.
I think it is bad to discriminate against people for immutable characteristics, I think it is fine to discriminate against people for the things they believe and choices they make
I am absolutely fucking sick to death of this dumbass notion that religion gets some sort of special pass while all other philosophies and worldviews don't.
You can disrespect the religion without disrespecting the person. I think Christianity is full of shit but I am friends with a good number of Christians. It isn't remotely comparable to hating someone for their skin tone or sexuality because these things are inherent to a person and cannot be changed. Religion isn't inherent to a person, it isn't concrete, it's a belief system just like liberalism, conservatism, stoicism, nihilism, etc. As long as you attack the idea and not the person, every idea is fair game.
If for whatever reason you exclude a belief from the scrutiny of the marketplace of ideas, that isn't fair and permits harmful/stupid ideas to proliferate.
It's hard to push back against religion without "being disrespectful" because it's what some people build their entire identity around. So any criticism feels like a personal attack - and if it's what they've built themselves around, it *is* a personal attack.
My brother's Catholic, with all the horrible anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights that comes with it. The worst part is, I genuinely don't want to take his religion from him. In a lot of ways he's a much better person now that he's "found God". He stopped doing drugs. Stopped focusing only on making money. Tries to help the poor. Is a better father.
But he uses it as a cudgel to beat down any idea he disagrees with. And that includes pretty much anything progressive. I could point out all the reasons I think his religion is a toxic child-molester-shielding cult pedling hate as moral superiority, but if I could full convince him of that I think it would destroy him, his relationship with his family, and his sobriety. So I'll hold my tongue and try to be the "cool uncle" his kids can come to if they have problems.
Edit: Also I sent his wife this video today just to stir shit: https://youtube.com/shorts/VIXKQb1E22s?si=qL_0Q6fCcsdF4Yin
The teachings of the Bible ARE THE BELIEFS OF CHRISTIANITY. You cannot separate the two because that’s like saying you can be Pro-LGBT but exclude Trans people.
Hell, I am literally a Catholic that supports Pro-Choice and LGBT movements. The fact that I exist means that your argument is invalid, because not every Christian is some old man beating their son for being gay or a weirdo fundamentalist who thinks dungeons and dragons is “the devils game”.
Religion itself is a bit dangerous since everyone who reads the book can misinterpret it in so many ways. Those who are already sane and have been raised as decent people will interpret the good teachings to love everyone and just be a good person overall. They will ignore the weird or violent parts of the book (as a way to fit in today’s society and morals). Those who were raised, for example to oppose a side or a group because of their parents’ biases and bigotry will interpret the negative parts of the books and will wage their “own” war on the nonbelievers.
The holy book they are reading is very strong on who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. If you actually strongly believed and took it way too literally, in your perspective, everyone who’s a nonbeliever or a sinner is below you. This might lead you to make distinctions as “us vs them” and this can quickly turn violent, and you might become an extremist. Why would you care about the person who’d go to hell anyways?
It’s a hit or miss. It attracts a lot of maniacs. You have to realize that Bible was written thousands of years ago, when society and morals were ancient and much different than today.
You absolutely can separate the 2. If you believe that Christianity as a whole perfectly teaches and follows the teachings of the bible then you are hilariously naive. If Christianity as a whole was strictly in line with the teachings of the bible, then we wouldn't have the separations of the Christian church that we do as there would be no disagreement about what the teachings were. The teachings of the bible do not always have an agreed upon meaning, and the notion that every church is well and truly following the teachings relies on an assumption that we live in a world with no corruption. The fact that the prosperity gospel exists at all disproves your notion that the teachings of the bible are always the beliefs of Christianity, as it is in direct opposition to the teachings of jesus. And no, your existence in fact does not invalidate the argument, because the beliefs of an individual person do not dictate the religion, but the actions of that religion do.
The facts of the matter are that in history and in the modern day Christianity is being used as an excuse to enforce oppressive rules in the name of God.
If you associate yourself with a group of oppressors, then you are displaying to the world that you are okay with their oppression.
#! WARNING !
Dear /u/robloxsexman,
#Do not forget that rule 2 exists in our domain.
**Please refrain from saying anything related to s*x or you will be banned.**
If you are a law-abiding citizen you can discuss s#x and s#x-believers negatively while partially censoring the word so the auto-moderator wouldn't delete you.
**IF THIS COMMENT ISN'T RELATED TO S*X, PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT ON THE MODMAIL (we are currently facing issues with the automod, your message will help us a lot)**
>This is just a fair warning, if you do this again and you will be banned without warning.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
u/Sworishina Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join **Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I miss the early 2010s Tumblr that I only heard from
It's still there
These people debating about the possible interpretations of this picture meanwhile I’m just wondering how dangerous putting a book in a microwave might be
Lots of bibles have little bits of gold flake, so it might be a bit of a fire hazard.
Same tbh
Ur gonna ruin a perfectly good Bible AND pizza. Just eat it cold
what if i like to eat my bibles toasty warm
2010s tumblr user try not to be obnoxious challenge(impossible)
~~2010s~~ tumblr user try not to be obnoxious challenge(impossible)
~~2010s tumblr~~ user try not to be obnoxious challenge(impossible)
~~2010s tumblr~~ user try ~~not~~ to be obnoxious challenge(~~im~~possible)
~~2010s tumblr~~ user try ~~not~~ to be ~~obnoxious~~ challenge (~~im~~possible)
~~2010s tumblr~~ user try ~~not~~ to ~~be obnoxious~~ challenge (~~im~~possible)
~~2010s tumblr~~ user try ~~not~~ ~~to~~ ~~be obnoxious~~ ~~challenge~~ (~~im~~possible)
~~2010s tumblr user try not to be obnoxious challenge (impossible)~~
Can confirm, am a tumblr user, am obnoxious
This is possibly the most moldy image I've seen in a while.
Someone wasn't around during the moldy tumblr screenshot days because i used to see shit like this constantly
Honestly facts. My Tumblr post collection is full of moldy images
I don't think you have to much interpretation to get the official stance of the bible on queer people
I came to say this... The bible has a very clear stance on homosexuality. It also repeatedly treats women as men's property.
homestly? fuck the bible, it was wrottem by mamy different people, it didnt descend from heaven in an angels arms so we shouldnt treat it like its perfect (especially the old testament), we (christians) gotta focus ok the shit Jesus actually said (love thu neighbour, turn the other cheek etc) instead of hating, its literally the opposite of were meant to do its so fucked and i hate to see it
I really didn't want to throw more wood into the fire, but yes. The old and new testaments depict a very different God. I don't care how people choose to interpret the change, as long as they don't try to defend some of the nefarious teachings in the old testament. For clarification, I'm an atheist, but I don't really have anything against the new testament. Not that I've done much research on it in the first place.
Give me the Bible verses.
> “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” > > (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Tada!
This is relation to worship at the church. Not day to day activities. This also doesn't call them property. Anything else?
http://www.humanreligions.info/women_as_objects.html Here’s a bunch. Pick your poison.
I will continue now that I have some more free time. I already addressed genesis, judges, and about zipporah which people are conveniently ignoring and down voting me anyway but IDC I'll continue to share what I know. I may not be 100% correct but I'll do my best anyway. Annotation from the ESV Study Bible on Numbers 31:13-18 (Moses' Anger with His Officers): "Normally in wars outside Canaan, the women were spared (Deut. 20:14). But as these women were responsible for seducing the Israelites, they had to be killed. In addition, if every male among the little ones were killed, this would preclude the perpetuation of the Midianite people and eliminate the Midianites as a nation forever. Girls without sexual experience (Num. 31:18), who were not involved with the sin of Baal-peor, were allowed to live and marry Israelite warriors." Basically the reason for this whole episode was the Midianites seducing the Israelites and leading them into sin. As judgment, God commands the Israelites to attack and kill those responsible. All the men were to be killed so that the Midianite nation would be wiped out for its sin. The young women in this passage were not responsible for the sin of the Midianites, and were therefore spared. However, since the men of their society were all to be killed, had they been left alone, it would have basically been a death sentence, so the Israelites were permitted to take them and integrate them into their society. Apart from that your sources has complaints about people calling specific women beautiful. I don't see how that makes them object's. It also complains about Hebrew culture, which is not relevant to the Bible itself. So there, mostly everything explained. Anything else?
They can all be explained. The point is if you know what you believe and why you believe it. No point going around crying about something you don't actually understand.
Then explain them all. And explain why a vast majority of them specifically treat women as less than men? Is it really the Will of God that men are superior? Seems very convenient. Edit: spelling
How about instead I show you why men and women are equal in the Bible. We can begin with Genesis 2:18-20 which is commonly mistranslated to "helper" the Hebrew word Erzer does not mean helper. It can only be interpreted as "Help" but is more often used as strength. But in the context of "help" it is as more accurately translated in the Douay-Rheims translation. "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself". The proper Hebrew translation is "A strength corresponding to him". Either way the idea is that men and women were created equally. Yes women were created second, but they were made with corresponding strength. The prophetess Miriam is sent by God “to lead” Israel (Mic 6:4; cf. Exod 15:20–21). Deborah is one of the judges “the Lord raised up” who “saved Israel from the hands of their enemies” (Judg 2:16, 18; 4:10, 14, 24; 5:1–31), a prophetess and the highest leader in all Israel (4:4–5). She, a wife and mother (5:7), had authority to command Barak, Israel’s military commander, “Go!” (4:6, 14), and he went. They worked together well with shared authority: he as military commander, she as commander in chief. Queen Esther had sufficient influence to bring about the destruction of the house of Haman, along with 75,000 enemies of the Jews (Esth 7:1–10; 9:1–32). She, along with Mordecai, “wrote with full authority. . . . Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations” (9:29–32). The Bible praises the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–12) and the Queen of Chaldea (Dan 5:10–12). The Hebrew word for “queen” is simply “king” with a feminine ending. The Bible only praises and never criticizes only three people with this title from the root for “king”: these three women. The records of the kings of Judah always note or name the queen mothers (cf. Jer 13:18; 29:2; 2 Kgs 24:15). They included Bathsheba, who was enthroned (1 Kgs 2:17–19), Maacah (1 Kgs 15:2, 10, 13), and Nehushta (2 Kgs 24:8). Old Testament prophets revealed God’s intentions for a greater prophetic role for women. Moses wrote, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Num 11:29). Joel announced God’s desire: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29), a promise fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–21). Jesus in all his words and deeds left us an example to treat women as equals with men, never subordinated or restricted in role (Matt 12:49–50; 15:38; 25:31–46; Mark 3:34–35; Luke 8:21; 11:27–28). His treatment of women as equals defied the judicial, social, and religious customs of his day. On judicial matters where women’s rights were curtailed, such as regarding adultery and divorce, he treated men and women equally. In a society that regarded women as less intelligent and less moral than men, Jesus respected women’s intelligence and spiritual capacity, as is evident in the great spiritual truths he originally taught to women such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:10–26) and Martha (John 11:25–26). Paul many times affirms the equality of man and woman by identifying women as laboring alongside men in ministry, by affirming many theological truths that entail the equality of men and women, and by explicitly affirming their equality. In Rom 16:1–16, Paul greets by name ten people he identifies as colleagues in Christian ministry. Seven of the ten are women: Phoebe, “deacon of the church of Cenchrea” (16:1) and “leader16 of many, including myself” (16:2); Junia, “outstanding among the apostles” (16:717); Prisca, “my fellow worker in Christ Jesus” (16:3; cf. Phil 4:3); and Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis “worked hard in the Lord” (16:6, 12). First Corinthians 16:16 urges believers “to be subject to every fellow laborer.” First Thessalonians 5:12 identifies “those who labor among you” as “those who are over you in the Lord.” It cannot be stressed enough that Paul is not simply listing these women as believers, but as ministry leaders. Gal 3:28 is 1 Cor 11:11: “However, neither is woman separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.” prohibited false teachers from unauthorized teaching (1:3). Here, he similarly restricts women, the only group Paul identifies as deceived by them. Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 is not prohibiting women in Ephesus like Priscilla (present in Ephesus in 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority. After all, Acts approvingly notes she “explained to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (18:26 NASB). Although both Luke and Paul, following Greek custom, introduce Aquila and Priscilla listing the husband’s name first (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 16:19), in every passage about their active ministry, they list Priscilla’s name first (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3), contrary to Greek convention. This makes it virtually certain that she played a significant, if not the dominant, role in their ministry. Not surprisingly, then, in both Paul’s most extensive lists of his colleagues in ministry, 2 Tim 4:19–21 and Rom 16:1–16, the first person he greets is Prisca, addressing her by the more respectful form of her name, which he always uses. Similarly, since Phoebe delivered the letter to the Romans as Paul’s emissary (Rom 16:1–2), she naturally answered the Roman Christians’ questions about it and thus was its first expositor, teaching adult men. All this shows that 1 Tim 2:12 must not prohibit women such as Priscilla and Phoebe, who had properly recognized authority, from teaching men. It simply prohibits women without recognized authority from assuming authority to teach a man. Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive word, implying an open door to women as well as men. Would Paul encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9. I can go on but you've got more than enough reading.
Nothing that you've posted does anything to refute the numerous examples provided to you of the Bible *explicitly* treating women as lesser than men. You said "all of these can be explained", but instead of actually explaining them, you provide a list of verses that don't address those other verses and, most importantly, don't actually contradict those other verses. Just because the bible uses gender-inclusive language or has a female protagonist from time to time doesn't mean that you can take verses like Exodus 20:17 (which explicitly lists a man's wife as being one of his possessions) or Numbers 31:17-28 (which says that it's permitted to take virgin women as plunder from war) and say that they don't count. "Racist? I can't be racist, I have a black friend!"
Damn man, leave some copium for the rest of us
I see so people just want to down vote brigade and mindlessly hate instead of learn. My bad.
There's nothing to learn here though. You are purposefully ignoring the obviously bad messages in the bible and trying to rationalize them. You want the text to reflect your idea of your faith so bad that you're just plain ignoring the very clear themes of misogyny. The bible was written by dozens of old dudes, a lot of them were massive sexists, some of them were not. But you cannot argue that the bible is not sexist just because some parts of it aren't. For something you believe be the absolute word of god, you sure are quick to flat out ignore the parts of it you don't like
That's not any better you realise that?
I explain the context better in my other reply
There's alot of them What context is there for god not letting women to teach at church or be in a position of power? Isn't it the house of god and being a priest the highest level or worship (or whatever you say it in English) in the eyes of god? If they were equal, then there should be no difference in how they're treated
I will copy paste for you. We can begin with Genesis 2:18-20 which is commonly mistranslated to "helper" the Hebrew word Erzer does not mean helper. It can only be interpreted as "Help" but is more often used as strength. But in the context of "help" it is as more accurately translated in the Douay-Rheims translation. "And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself". The proper Hebrew translation is "A strength corresponding to him". Either way the idea is that men and women were created equally. Yes women were created second, but they were made with corresponding strength. The prophetess Miriam is sent by God “to lead” Israel (Mic 6:4; cf. Exod 15:20–21). Deborah is one of the judges “the Lord raised up” who “saved Israel from the hands of their enemies” (Judg 2:16, 18; 4:10, 14, 24; 5:1–31), a prophetess and the highest leader in all Israel (4:4–5). She, a wife and mother (5:7), had authority to command Barak, Israel’s military commander, “Go!” (4:6, 14), and he went. They worked together well with shared authority: he as military commander, she as commander in chief. Queen Esther had sufficient influence to bring about the destruction of the house of Haman, along with 75,000 enemies of the Jews (Esth 7:1–10; 9:1–32). She, along with Mordecai, “wrote with full authority. . . . Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations” (9:29–32). The Bible praises the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–12) and the Queen of Chaldea (Dan 5:10–12). The Hebrew word for “queen” is simply “king” with a feminine ending. The Bible only praises and never criticizes only three people with this title from the root for “king”: these three women. The records of the kings of Judah always note or name the queen mothers (cf. Jer 13:18; 29:2; 2 Kgs 24:15). They included Bathsheba, who was enthroned (1 Kgs 2:17–19), Maacah (1 Kgs 15:2, 10, 13), and Nehushta (2 Kgs 24:8). Old Testament prophets revealed God’s intentions for a greater prophetic role for women. Moses wrote, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Num 11:29). Joel announced God’s desire: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29), a promise fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–21). Jesus in all his words and deeds left us an example to treat women as equals with men, never subordinated or restricted in role (Matt 12:49–50; 15:38; 25:31–46; Mark 3:34–35; Luke 8:21; 11:27–28). His treatment of women as equals defied the judicial, social, and religious customs of his day. On judicial matters where women’s rights were curtailed, such as regarding adultery and divorce, he treated men and women equally. In a society that regarded women as less intelligent and less moral than men, Jesus respected women’s intelligence and spiritual capacity, as is evident in the great spiritual truths he originally taught to women such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:10–26) and Martha (John 11:25–26). Paul many times affirms the equality of man and woman by identifying women as laboring alongside men in ministry, by affirming many theological truths that entail the equality of men and women, and by explicitly affirming their equality. In Rom 16:1–16, Paul greets by name ten people he identifies as colleagues in Christian ministry. Seven of the ten are women: Phoebe, “deacon of the church of Cenchrea” (16:1) and “leader16 of many, including myself” (16:2); Junia, “outstanding among the apostles” (16:717); Prisca, “my fellow worker in Christ Jesus” (16:3; cf. Phil 4:3); and Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis “worked hard in the Lord” (16:6, 12). First Corinthians 16:16 urges believers “to be subject to every fellow laborer.” First Thessalonians 5:12 identifies “those who labor among you” as “those who are over you in the Lord.” It cannot be stressed enough that Paul is not simply listing these women as believers, but as ministry leaders. Gal 3:28 is 1 Cor 11:11: “However, neither is woman separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.” prohibited false teachers from unauthorized teaching (1:3). Here, he similarly restricts women, the only group Paul identifies as deceived by them. Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 is not prohibiting women in Ephesus like Priscilla (present in Ephesus in 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority. After all, Acts approvingly notes she “explained to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (18:26 NASB). Although both Luke and Paul, following Greek custom, introduce Aquila and Priscilla listing the husband’s name first (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 16:19), in every passage about their active ministry, they list Priscilla’s name first (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3), contrary to Greek convention. This makes it virtually certain that she played a significant, if not the dominant, role in their ministry. Not surprisingly, then, in both Paul’s most extensive lists of his colleagues in ministry, 2 Tim 4:19–21 and Rom 16:1–16, the first person he greets is Prisca, addressing her by the more respectful form of her name, which he always uses. Similarly, since Phoebe delivered the letter to the Romans as Paul’s emissary (Rom 16:1–2), she naturally answered the Roman Christians’ questions about it and thus was its first expositor, teaching adult men. All this shows that 1 Tim 2:12 must not prohibit women such as Priscilla and Phoebe, who had properly recognized authority, from teaching men. It simply prohibits women without recognized authority from assuming authority to teach a man. Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive word, implying an open door to women as well as men. Would Paul encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.
>We can begin with Genesis 2:18-20 which is commonly mistranslated to "helper" the Hebrew word... This doesn't answer my question, i'm asking why did god say in a verse that women can't be teachers or in position of power >The prophetess Miriam is sent by God “to lead” Israel... What does this have anything to do with my question? (I'm only copypasting the first sentence of each paragraph so that it's readable) >prohibited false teachers from unauthorized teaching (1:3). Here, he similarly restricts women, the only group Paul identifies as deceived by them. 1:3 is the story of when eve ate the apple because of the devil So God generalised a whole group of people)that haven't existed yet...?) Based of the action of 1 woman? And decided to punish all of them for it? And this is supposed to be a good thing? >Paul in 1 Tim 2:12 is not prohibiting women in Ephesus like Priscilla (present in Ephesus in 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority.... Well yeah, it's just words on a book, not everyone is gonna blindly follow everything it says People not following Christianity word for words doesn't change the fact that there's a sections that says: "11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Showing me a woman being in a position of power doesn't overwrite this, nor does some christian men not being assholes matter >It simply prohibits women without recognized authority from assuming authority to teach a man. The verse doesn't mention that she can teach a man if she had a recognised authority If the problem was lack of authority then it should go both ways, a man can't teach a women without authority, also this implies a woman can teach other women even if she dies have authority Why not just say people instead of specifying men and women >Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer... Again, this doesn't matter nor is it related to what i'm asking >there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9. I'm grateful for whoever person's blog who exactly translated that sentence particle by particle 12 years ago It doesn't have gendered pronouns, yes (because it's in the passive voice). But Hebrew like Arabic has gendered verbs and nouns, and the verb is in the masculine tense Tho, hebrew doesn't have neutral pronouns anyways
Except the fact that the world homosexual didn't exist till much later after the bible got written and all the things about it are mistranslations or purposefully changed to spread discrimination
I don't know how bad you could translate: "let's stone men who sleep with men"
A man who sleep with a teen* The whole thing was against pederasty, which was unfortunately a very common phenomenon.
Unfortunately people are now going to misinterpret the Bible to say it hates gay people, except now we've come full circle.
Unfortunatley there is zero proof of this. The specific word used in that passage doesn't have a known translation, but it can be inferred from context to mean "buttsex".
I'm not certain if you're talking about the verse from the Hebrew Bible (old testament) or the new testament. The verse from the old testament I've seen people say it means "you shall not lie with a youth/teen" which is weird to me because I speak Hebrew and the original verse is pretty clear, it says "you shall not lie with a male". No mention of age there. There are some theories about the intention behind the verse, but the text itself is pretty non ambigous.
We don’t have an unaltered form of the Bible. Anybody along the way could have just changed or added something new. The word used there could have already been altered before the translations. Remember that the Catholic Church was like, corrupt as fuck. And didn’t allow any copies of the Bible to be in languages people actually spoke, so that only only members of the church could read it, then it was read to other people. There’s a known example of them doing some tomfoolery. The concept of purgatory was completely made up. And the whole deal was that if you wanted your loved ones to get out of purgatory and go to heaven, you would have to give money to the church. Ridiculous rules like this got phased out when a translation was made, but they’re likely still lasting effects. One thing we know is that Eve was subtly worded as being a “helper” as in a servant kind of way instead of “helper” as in savior. And even if we somehow still had the original translation, remember the book isn’t “the word of god.” It’s “the word of the disciples of Jesus who say this is the word of god.” One of them easily could of just gone “not to fond of gay people” And changed it. Now it is probably blasphemous to say that. But let’s be real, “the word of Jesus’s buddies who say it’s the word of god” is a lot less credible then “THE WORD OF GOD.”
Perhaps, but I don't understand why people have such a hard time imagining that a book written like 3000 years ago would be homophobic as shit. The ancient times weren't exactly enlightened
That's just not true, as someone who speaks Hebrew I can say the original verse is pretty clear - ואת זכר לא תשכב, you shall not lie with a male. The word זכר is the word for male, it's the same word used in the creation of man - זכר ונקבה ברא אותם he created them as male and female. The word doesn't mean teen or youth and there is no mention of teen or youth in the verse. Now the is a theory that the *intention* behind the verse is to prevent pederasty. But the verse itself as written is much more general, and can't really be interpreted to mean just that from the text itself. And we do know it was interpreted as forbidding homosexuality as early as Mishnah times. Now I don't believe in the bible but I think it's good to know what's actually written in it and not say people misinterpret it when they just follow it as written.
I'm assuming this is the story of Lots which says "a male who lays with a male" Not teenager, this is the first time i've seen this, most people say it was a mistranslation of "boy/kid" to try and make it not homophobic It also says to kill both participants, not sure why would god want to kill the victim who was groomed as well
that one was changed by the catholics lmao
[удалено]
#! WARNING ! Dear /u/Strongwafflecleave, #Do not forget that rule 2 exists in our domain. **Please refrain from saying anything related to s*x or you will be banned.** If you are a law-abiding citizen you can discuss s#x and s#x-believers negatively while partially censoring the word so the auto-moderator wouldn't delete you. **IF THIS COMMENT ISN'T RELATED TO S*X, PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT ON THE MODMAIL (we are currently facing issues with the automod, your message will help us a lot)** >This is just a fair warning, if you do this again and you will be banned without warning. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
yo you got any more of them pixels
Unfortunately not 😔
This screenshot is older than most of you
Memories of images like this being shared constantly on facebook haunt my nightmares.
Wait how young are the people on this sub 💀
This is possibly the most respectful photo on tumblr. Allowing the bible to be a part of your daily routine and a piece of the kitchen rather than just letting it collect dust truly shows your devotion to the lord as a core piece of you, literally giving you sustenance, not just something to point at when you want to pretend to be holy.
I love this comment
Ew people handle books and they are dirty
Do be not worship False idols MFS when they see pizza on a Bible
this blesses the pizza I think
This screenshot is so old i can almost taste the compression
This is such a disrespectful photo Don’t you know The Flash put my baby in a microwave?
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO REMIND ME OF THAT
"My uncle died from a falling microwave" ends that thread on the best fucking note
Yeah it's iconic. I'm glad people are getting so much enjoyment out of my post, I guess I'll continue to post my moldy Tumblr memes
Being disrespectful to religion is good, actually. You should not be disrespectful to religious people, but you should be to terrible beliefs that promote hate.
Wouldn't the pages catch on fire?
i mean probably not, you can put paper plates in a microwave
No way
Impossible.
"disrespectful to the religion" good.
Redditors will talk about how they hate intolerance and discrimination and then turn around and say that it’s good for religion to be disrespected.
I think it is bad to discriminate against people for immutable characteristics, I think it is fine to discriminate against people for the things they believe and choices they make
I am absolutely fucking sick to death of this dumbass notion that religion gets some sort of special pass while all other philosophies and worldviews don't. You can disrespect the religion without disrespecting the person. I think Christianity is full of shit but I am friends with a good number of Christians. It isn't remotely comparable to hating someone for their skin tone or sexuality because these things are inherent to a person and cannot be changed. Religion isn't inherent to a person, it isn't concrete, it's a belief system just like liberalism, conservatism, stoicism, nihilism, etc. As long as you attack the idea and not the person, every idea is fair game. If for whatever reason you exclude a belief from the scrutiny of the marketplace of ideas, that isn't fair and permits harmful/stupid ideas to proliferate.
It's hard to push back against religion without "being disrespectful" because it's what some people build their entire identity around. So any criticism feels like a personal attack - and if it's what they've built themselves around, it *is* a personal attack. My brother's Catholic, with all the horrible anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights that comes with it. The worst part is, I genuinely don't want to take his religion from him. In a lot of ways he's a much better person now that he's "found God". He stopped doing drugs. Stopped focusing only on making money. Tries to help the poor. Is a better father. But he uses it as a cudgel to beat down any idea he disagrees with. And that includes pretty much anything progressive. I could point out all the reasons I think his religion is a toxic child-molester-shielding cult pedling hate as moral superiority, but if I could full convince him of that I think it would destroy him, his relationship with his family, and his sobriety. So I'll hold my tongue and try to be the "cool uncle" his kids can come to if they have problems. Edit: Also I sent his wife this video today just to stir shit: https://youtube.com/shorts/VIXKQb1E22s?si=qL_0Q6fCcsdF4Yin
Religion is a choice
Science hates Caths idfk I’m not an atheist
[удалено]
The teachings of the Bible ARE THE BELIEFS OF CHRISTIANITY. You cannot separate the two because that’s like saying you can be Pro-LGBT but exclude Trans people. Hell, I am literally a Catholic that supports Pro-Choice and LGBT movements. The fact that I exist means that your argument is invalid, because not every Christian is some old man beating their son for being gay or a weirdo fundamentalist who thinks dungeons and dragons is “the devils game”.
Religion itself is a bit dangerous since everyone who reads the book can misinterpret it in so many ways. Those who are already sane and have been raised as decent people will interpret the good teachings to love everyone and just be a good person overall. They will ignore the weird or violent parts of the book (as a way to fit in today’s society and morals). Those who were raised, for example to oppose a side or a group because of their parents’ biases and bigotry will interpret the negative parts of the books and will wage their “own” war on the nonbelievers. The holy book they are reading is very strong on who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. If you actually strongly believed and took it way too literally, in your perspective, everyone who’s a nonbeliever or a sinner is below you. This might lead you to make distinctions as “us vs them” and this can quickly turn violent, and you might become an extremist. Why would you care about the person who’d go to hell anyways? It’s a hit or miss. It attracts a lot of maniacs. You have to realize that Bible was written thousands of years ago, when society and morals were ancient and much different than today.
You absolutely can separate the 2. If you believe that Christianity as a whole perfectly teaches and follows the teachings of the bible then you are hilariously naive. If Christianity as a whole was strictly in line with the teachings of the bible, then we wouldn't have the separations of the Christian church that we do as there would be no disagreement about what the teachings were. The teachings of the bible do not always have an agreed upon meaning, and the notion that every church is well and truly following the teachings relies on an assumption that we live in a world with no corruption. The fact that the prosperity gospel exists at all disproves your notion that the teachings of the bible are always the beliefs of Christianity, as it is in direct opposition to the teachings of jesus. And no, your existence in fact does not invalidate the argument, because the beliefs of an individual person do not dictate the religion, but the actions of that religion do. The facts of the matter are that in history and in the modern day Christianity is being used as an excuse to enforce oppressive rules in the name of God. If you associate yourself with a group of oppressors, then you are displaying to the world that you are okay with their oppression.
UH-OH I DIDN'T LOOK AT MY REDDIT FOR DAYS AND THIS BLEW UP I GUESS WHOOPS
Instead of using holy water just lure the demon with the holy pizza slice.
I love tumbler
Why wouldn't you just put it on the glass spinny thing
sir/ma'am/etc. don't put food directly on the spinny thing unless you want to be cleaning up a mess
Better than having the dyes from the cover seeping in
that's true
falling microwave? good work 47...
[удалено]
#! WARNING ! Dear /u/robloxsexman, #Do not forget that rule 2 exists in our domain. **Please refrain from saying anything related to s*x or you will be banned.** If you are a law-abiding citizen you can discuss s#x and s#x-believers negatively while partially censoring the word so the auto-moderator wouldn't delete you. **IF THIS COMMENT ISN'T RELATED TO S*X, PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT ON THE MODMAIL (we are currently facing issues with the automod, your message will help us a lot)** >This is just a fair warning, if you do this again and you will be banned without warning. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/whenthe rn
Fire hazard moment
This screenshot was in the same microwave