1389
Bible rule
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
1389 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
9399 readers
2566 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Clearly homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. Sorry, you simply aren't going to convince a fundamentalist to agree let LGBT folk be, when you have quotes like this in the book. Saying "jesus said love" isn't going to do it. Best strategy is the one that has been working. Education, so that people don't take religion so seriously or literally.
You're right, the Bible is full of contradictions, which I believe is fully on purpose, so that the devout can point to all the times God says love and say "look, my religion is one of love, my God is a god of love!" And then use that to justify committing all the other heinous act condoned in the Bible.
We won't ever know for sure but treating the contradictions in the Bible as intentional is probably giving more credit to the people who initially created it than they deserve.
More likely, they just just didn't really plan it out and instead shit was added piecemeal over time ultimately leaving a lot of contradictions.
Anyways, it seems much more likely that this happened organically rather than being intentional.
Apologetics is a core function of Christianity, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting entire books were rewritten to serve a specific narrative. If they believed the ends justified the means, they absolutely would add contradictions, even if they believed they were sincere in their actions. Just as Christians today still continue to add their own beliefs to the existing literature.
I probably shouldn't have used the term "organically" since the changes would be intentional and manipulative/manufactured. At a high level that is probably just human nature though so from that sense it kind of was organic.
Anyways yeah, there is nothing like a chain of custody on any of this stuff, it's been translated between languages many, many times. Contradictions, lack of chain of custody, discarding of translation biases, all of them are problematic and are generally dismissed by those faithful. I think that's part of the point for them, their faith covers those things. I don't understand it but I can appreciate how it helps some people. I wish people didn't also use it as an excuse to isolate and hate but I think that is more about humans being flawed than the concept of religion in general..
Yeah that's fair, I suppose saying it's on purpose would require some proof to back up that claim. I think the important part of my point though is that religious people use the contradictions in their books to commit atrocities. Thank you for your nuanced take, hornywarthogfart
Yeah your point totally stands for sure. I mostly replied because everyone I know treats the bible as some static, unchanging thing and I think that influences religious propagation because it kind of buries how such an important religious book came to be. Granted this is by design to help push the religious tenets and imply inviolability.
The council of Nicaea all but confirms your suspicion. It's pretty strange to me that nobody (to my knowledge) in the past 1,700+ years has cared to create a contradiction free Bible. I would cut out unreliable narrators and known forgers from my version. Who knows maybe I'd even include parts of the Apocrypha as well.
Weird how you're downvoted. Religion just isn't a good guide to live by but that's not your fault. Education is key.
There is no "the bible". It's a subjective collection of texts. While lots of people worship Paul as if he were a god, he's not actually Jesus.
Dude this is what I'm SAYING all the time. The only possible valid collection of the Christian Bible is the parts quoting Jesus. Everything after is fan fiction and blatant manipulation.
You don't have to study Christianity deeply to realize it is wrong. I was like 8 years old in catechism and remember thinking "Hey wait a minute... Jesus keeps saying not to worship him, isn't that what we're literally doing? Shouldn't we all be some form of Jewish if we want to follow Jesus' words?"
I've virtually come to the same conclusion after trying to reconcile Paul's legalism with Jesus' teaching.
I mean... there's a substantial difference between agreeing with a lifestyle, and persecuting that lifestyle. I assume you aren't currently picketing churches and harassing religious people, for example. The Bible is clear that an abundance of things are sinful, but Jesus consistently sets an example of loving prostitutes and tax collectors and Roman soldiers and everyone else Jews of that day hated.
So what this tweet is claiming is absolutely valid, the New Testament is immensely clear you should love everyone, and you shouldn't give "fundamentalists" a biblical pass for ignoring one of the most fundamental points the Bible makes, in hopes that they'll be willing to completely discard religion. They should be educated on their own damn book, and it's perfectly reasonable to call them on that.
I blame that damn council of Nicaea for grouping so many random books together. As far as I'm concerned Marcion's writings are the only cannon I would recognize. But seeing as it's almost completely lost, I'll have to be satisfied with ONLY the books of Luke and Acts from the Lexham English Bible translation.
If I'm feeling particularly frisky I'll include the infancy gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas..
To me, it seems that every other book in the currently accepted biblical canon was written purely out of Apologetics. "oh shoot I need to justify my opinion.. Oh look I found a new book that fits my agenda" then they said "Contradictions? No, [insert book/verse here] was written for X target audience so it doesn't apply here. My book is relevant to you!"
Bonus content:
Spicehoarder's Heretic Bible - First Edition:
Please, dick going up a butthole fits too perfectly for it to not be natural. Same goes for sucking. What they are referring to is the Roman practice of grooming children. Having a sexual relationship with a boy you adopted is unnatural.
But the question is about Jesus, and the references are in the new testament so it's correct. idk, the dude is supposed to be the son of god after all...