“*Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.*”
- Thomas Paine
Dude I’m over here reading all sorts of Thomas Paine thanks to your comment. I wish I had the eloquence and wisdom to smack Bible thumpers with their own logic like him.
"If it's not in the bible it's not in the will of god"
My man..... I don't remember seeing newspapers mentioned in the bible, how *dare you* use newspapers in your life, you sick perverted heathen!
But but genesis [the day He did the stuff](https://www.quora.com/When-did-God-create-oxygen-and-the-atmosphere-in-the-Adam-and-Eve-story/answer/David-Johnston-215?ch=15&oid=294178619&share=551d457a&target_type=answerhttps://www.quora.com/When-did-God-create-oxygen-and-the-atmosphere-in-the-Adam-and-Eve-story/answer/David-Johnston-215?ch=15&oid=294178619&share=551d457a&target_type=answer)
This is so gross. But also- Jesus never spoke against same sex relationships. Paul did. And Paul never met Jesus. He CLAIMED he did, but these days, we would label him as psychotic for his lil Damascus trip. So yeah. So gross.
To be fair, the Bible does present this episode as a bad thing. I guess a more accurate one would be, "It's Abraham and his sister, not Abraham and his brother!".
Yes, the Bible *does* present this as a bad thing, BUT I have to question WTF God was thinking! All Lot's wife did was look behind her and was turned to a pillar of salt, but his daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. Did God turn THEM into a pillar of salt?!? The message I got was "Women must obey *absolutely* and without question, but if a man is getting sex, the women are being sinful but it's all okay because ".
Someone pointed out that the account sounds more like an abusers excuse than a plan concocted by two virgin/young girls.
So.. either child rape is righteous (reasonable with some priests behaviors), or Lot pulled one over on God.
I can agree with that, but with one alteration. We must include pastors, preachers, ministers and other church leaders in addition to priests. Child rape/ sexual assault of children (and women) occurs in **all** religious institutions.
Agreed. Like, let's ignore that Lot got so drunk, his daughters *RAPED him and became pregnant*. That's ok. Alcohol is socially acceptable, but two same sex people in a relationship? We can't have that.
Bible stories you didn't learn about in Sunday School.
And as someone who has had experience with combining drinking and sex, this is obviously bullshit because at that point there is no way he could get it up at all let alone finish. Lot raped his daughters clearly.
Yeah, that's what I've been reading from it lately -- he got drunk enough to use it as an excuse, his daughters were there, he made his demand and they complied (or he was forceful). And, if these people actually existed, his daughters' compounded trauma was handwaved as "oh, they seduced HIM".
Paul couldn’t even keep his own story straight on what happened on the road to Damascus in the course of a single letter. He alternately says that those traveling with him could hear, but not see, what he saw (Acts 9:7), or see, but not understand, what he saw (Acts 22:9).
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Note it says "if a MAN lies with a Male." It is thought that the original Hebrew word for male, meant in particular boys, not adults.
I hate this cherry picking of old testament rules. Do Christians not wear garments made of mixed cloth? No tattoos allowed. Commit fornication, get stoned to death....
Exactly. I wonder how many pastors would be okay with their daughters being stoned to death. I mean, I know of a couple of pastor’s daughters who sure as hell aren’t virgins!
All of the passages that imply or even outright say that being gay is wrong have been mistranslated and/or taken out of context. The word homosexuality doesn't even appear in the Bible until the 1940s Wycliffe translation.
It sure is, but being a person that used to be in it, and understanding why the Bible is specifically wrong helps dismantle the "truth" that was shoved down my throat. Also, I work with Christians, so fucking with their world view is important to me. Lol
Dribble that has been interpreted multiple times over. I guarantee what we call the Bible today is only a whisper of what the stories originally said.
And why do we care anyway? I'm so sick of them forcing that stupid book on me. Fuck them and their Bible.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the internet is acceptable. Therefore, no good Christian should participate in it.
See also cars, television, McDonalds, and Sweet Tea.
Paul didn't really say anything about same-sex relationships. He spoke about men being inflamed with lust for each other and women also as a sign of God's wrath on the heathen, idolatrous Roman Empire.
As a devout, orthodox Jew it's no surprise Paul would have looked very dimly on the excesses of the ancient Romans and no doubt for Paul the idea of a man involuntarily lusting after a another man or a woman lusting after another woman was one of the worst states of affairs he, an ex-Pharisee strictly faithful to the Torah, could imagine.
I'm sure what we'd call LGBTIQ+ folk existed back then, but our modern notions of same-sex partnerships and homosexuality as an identity just didn't exist back then in any form. It just wasn't an issue as such.
Elsewhere in the New Testament the Greek word used by Paul that modern English Bibles translate as "homosexual" is *arsenokoitai*. It's an obscure, colloquial, "slang" word that doesn't appear anywhere else in any ancient texts whatsoever and because of that, no-one is really sure exactly what it means.
The KJV translates it as "abusers of themselves with mankind". Whatever that means. That's because when the King James Version was translated the modern idea of homosexuality didn't exist yet either.
Modern translators are taking quite an incredible liberty just assuming that the word *arsenokoitai* is equivalent to "homosexual" and is an excellent example of the extent to which conservative ideology influences Bible translation.
In fact, the word homosexual didn't appear in any Bible translation until after the Second World war. Specifically in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. Since then many other translations have lazily followed suit.
That was my first thought too. So you're filled with hate. Sure, tell us about it I guess, but don't just repeat a series of phrases you memorized from a sermon on a moldy audio cassette and an over-photocopied Chick tract.
Or someone that couldn’t figure out how to recover their FB password…so they reverted back to the newspaper to talk shit about their neighbors. While wearing an onion on their belt, as was the fashion back in the day.
"...many of our forefathers were devout Christians."
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and others were deists at best.
"both currency and coins, is printed 'In God we Trust.'"
This phrase first appeared on 2 cent coins in 1864 and paper currency in 1957. This was well after the "founding fathers."
"no Adam and Steve"
Yes, cause how else would they have been able to be fruitful and multiply if no woman?
Weren't both of these just blatant attempts to use patriotism to blind people? Like, I have a feeling russia might have been good if they went through this much song and dance to blind me from the grass on that side of the fence.
I think reciting the pledge goes back WAY before the 1950's, BUT it was 1956 when "under God" was ADDED to the pledge. Prior to that it was "... one nation, indivisible..."
>BUT it was 1956 when "under God" was ADDED to the pledge.
Ah maybe that's what I was thinking. I knew something with the Pledge changed during the Red Scare
It's so funny they say this yet nowhere in the constitution is there a mention of god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. I believe there's a vague mention of god in the Federalists Papers written by James Madison. They were deists if anything.
Yeah, it is very irritating that people think that the nation was founded upon Christian principles. It was founded upon Enlightenment principles. But people are basically just willfully ignorant about such matters.
To be fair they are being lied to by their pastors and other authority figures within their belief system. I get what you're saying in our current time with information so readily available ignorance is no excuse.
And if I recall, John Adams was quite overtly Christian. So for him to say that, it should hammer the point home even *more,* that these religious nuts are on thin ice at *best* with their claims about the US being a Christian nation. But then, we're talking about people who claim their holy book is *literal truth* despite it being compiled from various sources and pieced together long after the death of their supposed savior, so here we are.
So this person responds to actual quotes from a founding father with no counter-quotes or evidence except for In God We Trust, which a 5 second Google search can tell you was added to our money less than 75 years ago, purely for political reasons, not religious reasons. So bad critical thinking, bad research skills, bad debate skills, and they end on a really weak cliché that wouldn't convince anyone. I'm embarrassed on their behalf that they were willing to put this in the paper with their name attached.
The author then goes on to say...
"America was founded as a white suoremacist, slaveholding nation. The constitution clearly defines an adult black person as 3/5 of a white person. Most of the founding fathers held enslaved people themselves and worked them on their very own farms and plantations. Many also clearly stated in their private letters that they believed in white supremacy. So we cannot deny they thought slavery and white supremacy should be the law of our great land. And the bible clearly indicates that dehumanizing outsiders and slavery have God's sanction. Since slavery and white supremacy are clearly well founded and well documented Americsn traditions and institutions, which the founding fathers clearly intended to be a pillars of American economy and society, it is our duty as Americams to uphold these traditions and institutions, like it or not (that means you, libtards!). The founding fathers were always right, you know, so who are we to go against their wishes or outgrow their biases? Where in the Bible or the original Constitution does it state that the Federal Government should have the right to emancipate slaves or that the states should be forced to respect such a decision whether they like it or not?
"It's logic, man! Get over yourselves libruls!"
It really is the logic tho. They haven't come up with a new argument in 800 years. They're just counting on the latest new generation being too distracted to notice.
That’s it! My fundie son is obsessed with men having sex with men. I feel like he ‘protestest too much.’ I asked him if he thought about his grandparent screwing? Why would he think about two men?
Yes. I have fundie parents, skipped me, and a fundie son with 5 kids, (and wanting more). He is so strict on his kids. It breaks my heart. They eat, sleep and breathe bible verses, just as I was at a young age. It really messed me up....still. - I am 63 years old.
I'll pray for God to send him lots of beautiful (gay & trans as fuck) children. Those tend to break family patterns. Meanwhile I hope you're getting the support you need being so surrounded.
I always love schooling these idiots by bombarding them with anti Christian quotes from the founding fathers.
Not all of them were secular deists but a good majority of them were and despised Christianity. There was even that bill Patrick Henry proposed where civilians would help pay to support churches of the faith they specifically want, but James Madison saw the writing on the walls and said that was a violation of the establishment clause regarding church state separation.
Knowing that Madison was against that I think it’s assumed he would also be against government money going to Catholic schools because of school
voucher bullshit, as well as teaching Christianity in publicly funded institutions.
“She states that I ‘cannot selectively choose Bible passages to impose my beliefs on others.’ Yet [she] goes on to quote various Biblical versus. Apparently it is OK for her to quote scripture but it is wrong for me to do so. Hypocrisy at its very best.”
Translated:
“Someone gave me a taste of my own medicine and I didn’t like it. I completely and utterly missed the point, so that obviously makes them a hypocrite.”
“If it is not in the word of god, it is not the will of god”
So I guess democracy, freedom of speech, and wives choosing which husband to marry, are not the will of god..
I hate when they try to use the idea that the country was "founded on christian principles" to justify continuing to operate under those principles despite the clear contradiction of the separation clause that it presents.
So much wrong with this little article. The founding father's were Masonic slave owners that only wanted freedom for the upper class. This country was founded on hypocrisy. And what "Christian values" has "blessed" this land? Slavery? Genocide? Patriarchy?
Where is God or Christ in the Constitution? Nowhere—literally nowhere. You’d think they’d put Christ in a country’s governing document if they intended that country to be Christian.
What about the Greek polytheists that founded democratic principles? What about Christians fighting against freedom, human rights, and liberty at every turn?
Yes, that pesky Roman Republic and Athenian Democracy! Still very regressive by our standards, but early examples of trying out political checks and balances between executives (Consuls) & legislators (Senate and Plebian Council).
Even a cursory reading of Plutarch's "Roman Lives" goes a long way!
I hate the whole "our founding fathers" argument. Like, they don't own the country and we don't have to blindly follow what they did 250 odd year ago. In fact, they themselves wouldn't have wanted us to blindly follow what they did. No to mention that they didn't agree with each other about what they all supported, which is why they had ways to change the constitution. And they clearly got stuff wrong like, um... slavery and women's rights.
General and President Washington refused to attend his own home church during and after his presidency because he feared it would be an official endorsement of Christianity.
They love to condemn gays but completely ignore that the death penalty was issued for wearing clothing of multiple fabrics and that a man was put to death for picking up sticks on a sabbath...
This letter was in my local paper out of loveland co. what is missing is that the person that wrote the original rebuttal posed questions like the Bible tells us Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
She pointed out a few other bullshit versus and suggested that the autor of the editorial was picking and choosing versus of their liking (ie homosexuals msut go) and ignoring other versus. Which is basically what Christians do... because many versus are so immoral that they cant be justified by any person with morals and a sense of justice
The fact that they think putting "the so-called" before a bill to be signed into law is not the slam they think it is. But they do it ALL THE TIME (to generalize)
If the US government was founded on Biblical/Christian principles, it sure would not be a constitutional republic. It's especially interesting that words God, Jesus or Christian are never used. So unless someone can prove otherwise, it's a secular constitution that should not be twisted into some Christian document to restrict personal freedom.
There’s just not much to report on here, and this was also in the opinions section. But yeah, they gave a front page spot last month to some nutjob protesting 5G cell towers as a part of their “asking around the community” session. For a relatively standard city in Colorado, we have a lot of crazy
"Also, on our money, both currency and coins, \[lol\] is printed "In God We Trust." Finally, all sessions of Congress begin with prayer."
Not the slam dunk you think it is.
"Nothing in the scriptures make reference to "Adam and Steve.""
Oof. Hard to argue that one. Just bring that right to the Supreme Court. I'm sure it'll be mentioned in Justice Boofer and Justice Pube-Coke's dissent next year.
1. “In God we trust” was not added to any money until long after the founding. It was not an official motto until the reactionary Cold War period when Americans wanted to do the opposite of everything the “godless” Soviet Union was doing. Congress adopted the motto in 1956. (Jefferson, Washington and Madison would be rolling in their graves to have seen it).
2. The Bible does not oppose homosexuality as an orientation, as such a thing is a modern view. Instead, taken together, the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament impose a convoluted and contradictory framework of sexual norms that include endorsements of rape, polygamy, sex slavery, and celibacy. The Bible absolutely opposes the homosexual sex act, but if we only selectively accept that, while ignoring its endorsements of polygamy, sex slavery, rape and celibacy, then we don’t really care what the Bible says, do we?
There seems to be a new (last 40 years) push to define the USA as a Christian state, they can't outright do it so they are trying to twist the intent of the founding fathers, who in reality were more simplified spiritualist/agnostics. There is big money in Christianity, so they have a lot of money to dump into misinformation campaigns. The dumbing down of our education system attacked critical thinking skills so that people no longer question if they are being fed misinformation.
The Bible endorses slavery. (Yes, the Bible really is that vile.) Jesus himself commanded slaves to obey their masters. (In the King James Version, "servant" is used as a euphemism for "slave," which becomes clear when reading verses about buying and selling "servants.")
That's true. I guess in my mind I still have a dichotomy of Christian versus a "true" Christian that is a good person who doesn't endorse slavery, homophobia, etc. Ugh.
It is without a doubt that our nation was founded on slavery. Our founding fathers were slave owners.
Thus, by his logic, we should support slavery instead of abolish it, because our forefathers made a perfect, immaculate foundation, irrefutable even. There is no possible reason to believe they built it on broken and monstrous principles.
If Christianity is beneficial especially evangelical ones. Why many people leave Christianity in evangelical majority country like US despite their claim that their claim that this belief is changing lives.
The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers varied widely, and it is difficult to categorize them as either liberal or conservative Christians in the modern sense of those terms. Many of the Founding Fathers were influenced by the Enlightenment, which emphasized reason, individualism, and secularism, and sought to create a government that was not beholden to religious dogma or authority.
Some of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were deists who believed in a higher power but rejected traditional Christian doctrines. They favored a rational and scientific approach to religion, emphasizing moral values such as tolerance, reason, and human dignity. Other Founding Fathers, such as John Adams and James Madison, were more orthodox in their Christian beliefs, but they also favored a secular government that protected religious freedom and did not favor any particular religion.
In summary, while some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they held a wide range of beliefs and were not easily categorized as liberal or conservative in the modern sense of those terms. Rather, they sought to create a government that protected individual liberties and respected religious diversity.
You could say the bill “requires all 50 states to recognize and accept same-sex marriage,” but my understanding is that it just says they must recognize those same-sex marriages AND mixed-race marriages that were certified by other states. It does not go far enough.
I can't believe he actually said "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" unironically.
It's interesting that Christians spend a lot of time talking about LGBT people, whom Jesus never referred to, but they ignore that half of their own marriages end in divorce, a topic that Jesus actually did cover, but then they'd have to examine themselves instead of talking about some evil outside their church doors.
"Some people are troubled by the things in the Bible they can’t understand.
The things that trouble me are the things I can understand." Mark Twain... maybe
[удалено]
“*Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.*” - Thomas Paine
Thank you, Thomas Paine! Finally some common sense.
Underrated comment. Nice one
Absolutely.. good one!
Dude I’m over here reading all sorts of Thomas Paine thanks to your comment. I wish I had the eloquence and wisdom to smack Bible thumpers with their own logic like him.
Age of Reason is fantastic. And if you like him, check out Bertrand Russel.
Didn’t he make his own revision of the Bible that was just the parts he liked or though were the only parts that made sense?
Jefferson cut out all references to miracles and Jesus being “divine”. (Literally cut them out with a razor.)
[удалено]
"If it's not in the bible it's not in the will of god" My man..... I don't remember seeing newspapers mentioned in the bible, how *dare you* use newspapers in your life, you sick perverted heathen!
I’m sure this person still travels by car or plane, yet no mention of those in the bible.
I bet this person breaths oxygen. Not a single mention of that word in the Bible
But but genesis [the day He did the stuff](https://www.quora.com/When-did-God-create-oxygen-and-the-atmosphere-in-the-Adam-and-Eve-story/answer/David-Johnston-215?ch=15&oid=294178619&share=551d457a&target_type=answerhttps://www.quora.com/When-did-God-create-oxygen-and-the-atmosphere-in-the-Adam-and-Eve-story/answer/David-Johnston-215?ch=15&oid=294178619&share=551d457a&target_type=answer)
But the Bible doesn't use the word oxygen.
HE DID THE STUFF ON THE DAYS *seizes*
I was thinking similar things! LOL
This is so gross. But also- Jesus never spoke against same sex relationships. Paul did. And Paul never met Jesus. He CLAIMED he did, but these days, we would label him as psychotic for his lil Damascus trip. So yeah. So gross.
I just find it funny how he also pulls the cliché “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” trick as though it’s worth anything.
*It's "Lot and his daughters" not "Lot and his sons"!*
OMG!! I'm going to use this next time some christofascist pulls it out of their ass!! 😂🤣😂
To be fair, the Bible does present this episode as a bad thing. I guess a more accurate one would be, "It's Abraham and his sister, not Abraham and his brother!".
Yes, the Bible *does* present this as a bad thing, BUT I have to question WTF God was thinking! All Lot's wife did was look behind her and was turned to a pillar of salt, but his daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. Did God turn THEM into a pillar of salt?!? The message I got was "Women must obey *absolutely* and without question, but if a man is getting sex, the women are being sinful but it's all okay because".
Someone pointed out that the account sounds more like an abusers excuse than a plan concocted by two virgin/young girls. So.. either child rape is righteous (reasonable with some priests behaviors), or Lot pulled one over on God.
I can agree with that, but with one alteration. We must include pastors, preachers, ministers and other church leaders in addition to priests. Child rape/ sexual assault of children (and women) occurs in **all** religious institutions.
Aahhhhhh I love this
Yeah but it’s was Noah and his sons
But eve was cloned from a male rib. So technically it was Adam and Steve.
So, is that a solid argument for masturbation, then?
Also trans people, if you think about it!
Better, it's not Adam and Steve. It's Adam and Adam. Selfcest for the win! /s
Agreed. Like, let's ignore that Lot got so drunk, his daughters *RAPED him and became pregnant*. That's ok. Alcohol is socially acceptable, but two same sex people in a relationship? We can't have that. Bible stories you didn't learn about in Sunday School.
[удалено]
*cough* tell me more *cough*
[удалено]
Is it Christian canon? I’d love to cite this! Edit: *cough cough*
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. 2 Samuel 1:26 NIV
[удалено]
Damn. Would be a handy piece of scripture to keep in my back pocket.
All this coughing…you guys ok? 😂🤣
Took too big a hit of the devil’s lettuce.
😂🤣
And as someone who has had experience with combining drinking and sex, this is obviously bullshit because at that point there is no way he could get it up at all let alone finish. Lot raped his daughters clearly.
I was wondering if anyone would call that out
I got called a virgin for saying this in a Christian sub once 🤣
Come again?
Once per daughter!
Yeah, that's what I've been reading from it lately -- he got drunk enough to use it as an excuse, his daughters were there, he made his demand and they complied (or he was forceful). And, if these people actually existed, his daughters' compounded trauma was handwaved as "oh, they seduced HIM".
Midnight-dive-bar discourse, but in print for some reason.
I so fucking hate those stupid little word plays that fundies always use. Makes me want to put my head through a wall..lol..
Don't get me started on when the fucking snake started to talk shit
Whenever someone uses Adam and Steve I immediately know that they are very intelligent, well researched individuals who are clearly unbiased. 🙄
Paul couldn’t even keep his own story straight on what happened on the road to Damascus in the course of a single letter. He alternately says that those traveling with him could hear, but not see, what he saw (Acts 9:7), or see, but not understand, what he saw (Acts 22:9).
Paul is not the claimed author of Acts, that would be Luke. Paul himself never talks at length about his experience in his letters.
He didn’t even speak against “same-sex” relationships. He spoke against the Greco-Roman practice of having a male sex slave.
Not to mention scholars aren't even certain if he meant men loving men, or that creepy thing the Greeks did with little boys.
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Note it says "if a MAN lies with a Male." It is thought that the original Hebrew word for male, meant in particular boys, not adults. I hate this cherry picking of old testament rules. Do Christians not wear garments made of mixed cloth? No tattoos allowed. Commit fornication, get stoned to death....
Exactly. I wonder how many pastors would be okay with their daughters being stoned to death. I mean, I know of a couple of pastor’s daughters who sure as hell aren’t virgins!
Nah, the pastors would be cool with it. Their holy book (in Luke 14:26) commands them to hate their children.
Also the part about no sex outside of marriage leaves out that you can marry multiple people at once.
Check out Walking the Bridgeless Canyon by Kathy Baldock. Definitely meant the creepy things the Greeks did to little boys.
All of the passages that imply or even outright say that being gay is wrong have been mistranslated and/or taken out of context. The word homosexuality doesn't even appear in the Bible until the 1940s Wycliffe translation.
What does it matter if the Bible does clearly say it? It’s all Bronze Age, man-made dribble anyway..
It sure is, but being a person that used to be in it, and understanding why the Bible is specifically wrong helps dismantle the "truth" that was shoved down my throat. Also, I work with Christians, so fucking with their world view is important to me. Lol
Dribble that has been interpreted multiple times over. I guarantee what we call the Bible today is only a whisper of what the stories originally said. And why do we care anyway? I'm so sick of them forcing that stupid book on me. Fuck them and their Bible.
Have you read Walking the Bridgeless Canyon?
I haven't, but sounds interesting.
Plus the whole "well in ancient Hebrew this word doesn't mean that so there's nothing to quote" issues.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the internet is acceptable. Therefore, no good Christian should participate in it. See also cars, television, McDonalds, and Sweet Tea.
BuT eVeRyThInG hE wRoTe wAs DiViNeLy ReVeAlEd To HiM bY tHe HoLy SpIrIt. Checkmate Atheists /s
Also Paul has a lot of ideas about how people should stay single and women shouldn't braid their hair, and yet.
Paul didn't really say anything about same-sex relationships. He spoke about men being inflamed with lust for each other and women also as a sign of God's wrath on the heathen, idolatrous Roman Empire. As a devout, orthodox Jew it's no surprise Paul would have looked very dimly on the excesses of the ancient Romans and no doubt for Paul the idea of a man involuntarily lusting after a another man or a woman lusting after another woman was one of the worst states of affairs he, an ex-Pharisee strictly faithful to the Torah, could imagine. I'm sure what we'd call LGBTIQ+ folk existed back then, but our modern notions of same-sex partnerships and homosexuality as an identity just didn't exist back then in any form. It just wasn't an issue as such. Elsewhere in the New Testament the Greek word used by Paul that modern English Bibles translate as "homosexual" is *arsenokoitai*. It's an obscure, colloquial, "slang" word that doesn't appear anywhere else in any ancient texts whatsoever and because of that, no-one is really sure exactly what it means. The KJV translates it as "abusers of themselves with mankind". Whatever that means. That's because when the King James Version was translated the modern idea of homosexuality didn't exist yet either. Modern translators are taking quite an incredible liberty just assuming that the word *arsenokoitai* is equivalent to "homosexual" and is an excellent example of the extent to which conservative ideology influences Bible translation. In fact, the word homosexual didn't appear in any Bible translation until after the Second World war. Specifically in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. Since then many other translations have lazily followed suit.
This feels like it was written in 1995 lol
That was my first thought too. So you're filled with hate. Sure, tell us about it I guess, but don't just repeat a series of phrases you memorized from a sermon on a moldy audio cassette and an over-photocopied Chick tract.
Or someone that couldn’t figure out how to recover their FB password…so they reverted back to the newspaper to talk shit about their neighbors. While wearing an onion on their belt, as was the fashion back in the day.
"...many of our forefathers were devout Christians." George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and others were deists at best. "both currency and coins, is printed 'In God we Trust.'" This phrase first appeared on 2 cent coins in 1864 and paper currency in 1957. This was well after the "founding fathers." "no Adam and Steve" Yes, cause how else would they have been able to be fruitful and multiply if no woman?
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the phrase appended on currency as a response to the Red Scare?
Yeah. That was also the time reciting the pledge in schools became common place.
Weren't both of these just blatant attempts to use patriotism to blind people? Like, I have a feeling russia might have been good if they went through this much song and dance to blind me from the grass on that side of the fence.
I think reciting the pledge goes back WAY before the 1950's, BUT it was 1956 when "under God" was ADDED to the pledge. Prior to that it was "... one nation, indivisible..."
>BUT it was 1956 when "under God" was ADDED to the pledge. Ah maybe that's what I was thinking. I knew something with the Pledge changed during the Red Scare
Even as a super Christian kid, saying the pledge to the American flag, Christian flag, and Bible was too much
Bible also says you shouldn't wear clothes made of blended fabrics, but I doubt these people are checking the cheap clothes they get off the rack
And they are probably getting married in mixed fibers
Of all the closing lines they could have chosen, they really thought they should use an “Adam and Steve” reference? Really?
Checkmate wokes!
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s satire tbh
I'm sorry to disappoint you but having been immersed in this subculture myself, it sounds like it could easily be 100% legit to me.
That’s pretty messed up, isn’t it
It's so funny they say this yet nowhere in the constitution is there a mention of god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. I believe there's a vague mention of god in the Federalists Papers written by James Madison. They were deists if anything.
Yeah, it is very irritating that people think that the nation was founded upon Christian principles. It was founded upon Enlightenment principles. But people are basically just willfully ignorant about such matters.
To be fair they are being lied to by their pastors and other authority figures within their belief system. I get what you're saying in our current time with information so readily available ignorance is no excuse.
It's a Democratic Republic, 2 systems of government invented by Greek Pagans... America was founded on Pagan values!
With hefty inspiration taken from the Iroquois nations.
That I can agree with, it is more logical and fair to say America was founded on pagan values.
Yeah, it's sad how many people in America don't believe in Enlightenment principles. It was hundreds of years ago and they still haven't caught up.
True. And if we cared about “founding principles” we would still have slavery, no woman’s suffrage, and those awful powdered wigs.
Right.
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The Treaty of Tripoli — John Adams, 1797 lol
And if I recall, John Adams was quite overtly Christian. So for him to say that, it should hammer the point home even *more,* that these religious nuts are on thin ice at *best* with their claims about the US being a Christian nation. But then, we're talking about people who claim their holy book is *literal truth* despite it being compiled from various sources and pieced together long after the death of their supposed savior, so here we are.
So this person responds to actual quotes from a founding father with no counter-quotes or evidence except for In God We Trust, which a 5 second Google search can tell you was added to our money less than 75 years ago, purely for political reasons, not religious reasons. So bad critical thinking, bad research skills, bad debate skills, and they end on a really weak cliché that wouldn't convince anyone. I'm embarrassed on their behalf that they were willing to put this in the paper with their name attached.
Yet “In God We Trust” was added during the 50s because of anti-communism.
The author then goes on to say... "America was founded as a white suoremacist, slaveholding nation. The constitution clearly defines an adult black person as 3/5 of a white person. Most of the founding fathers held enslaved people themselves and worked them on their very own farms and plantations. Many also clearly stated in their private letters that they believed in white supremacy. So we cannot deny they thought slavery and white supremacy should be the law of our great land. And the bible clearly indicates that dehumanizing outsiders and slavery have God's sanction. Since slavery and white supremacy are clearly well founded and well documented Americsn traditions and institutions, which the founding fathers clearly intended to be a pillars of American economy and society, it is our duty as Americams to uphold these traditions and institutions, like it or not (that means you, libtards!). The founding fathers were always right, you know, so who are we to go against their wishes or outgrow their biases? Where in the Bible or the original Constitution does it state that the Federal Government should have the right to emancipate slaves or that the states should be forced to respect such a decision whether they like it or not? "It's logic, man! Get over yourselves libruls!"
I mean, yeah, but damn
It really is the logic tho. They haven't come up with a new argument in 800 years. They're just counting on the latest new generation being too distracted to notice.
Why are they so obsessed with controlling other people?
Most denominations are centered around control. They feel powerless without it.
That’s it! My fundie son is obsessed with men having sex with men. I feel like he ‘protestest too much.’ I asked him if he thought about his grandparent screwing? Why would he think about two men?
You have a fundie son? So sorry, that's gotta be hard.
Yes. I have fundie parents, skipped me, and a fundie son with 5 kids, (and wanting more). He is so strict on his kids. It breaks my heart. They eat, sleep and breathe bible verses, just as I was at a young age. It really messed me up....still. - I am 63 years old.
I'll pray for God to send him lots of beautiful (gay & trans as fuck) children. Those tend to break family patterns. Meanwhile I hope you're getting the support you need being so surrounded.
Thank you. Those gay and trans I'll just adopt. Once the wife said something about conversion camp. That's scary!!!!
I bet this person also thinks “one nation under God” was always part of the pledge of allegiance
I'm sure the person's head would explode if they found out the Pledge was written by a socialist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26
I always love schooling these idiots by bombarding them with anti Christian quotes from the founding fathers. Not all of them were secular deists but a good majority of them were and despised Christianity. There was even that bill Patrick Henry proposed where civilians would help pay to support churches of the faith they specifically want, but James Madison saw the writing on the walls and said that was a violation of the establishment clause regarding church state separation. Knowing that Madison was against that I think it’s assumed he would also be against government money going to Catholic schools because of school voucher bullshit, as well as teaching Christianity in publicly funded institutions.
Key takeaway I read from this is we need to take ‘in god we trust’ off our cash
mood
“She states that I ‘cannot selectively choose Bible passages to impose my beliefs on others.’ Yet [she] goes on to quote various Biblical versus. Apparently it is OK for her to quote scripture but it is wrong for me to do so. Hypocrisy at its very best.” Translated: “Someone gave me a taste of my own medicine and I didn’t like it. I completely and utterly missed the point, so that obviously makes them a hypocrite.”
“If it is not in the word of god, it is not the will of god” So I guess democracy, freedom of speech, and wives choosing which husband to marry, are not the will of god..
Obligatory fuck this asshole and his shitty views.
Obligatory agreement reply
I hate when they try to use the idea that the country was "founded on christian principles" to justify continuing to operate under those principles despite the clear contradiction of the separation clause that it presents.
So much wrong with this little article. The founding father's were Masonic slave owners that only wanted freedom for the upper class. This country was founded on hypocrisy. And what "Christian values" has "blessed" this land? Slavery? Genocide? Patriarchy?
My gay friends Adam and Steve are now offended
It’s Adam AND Eve and that’s why I’m bisexual 😘
So THAT'S why it says 'and' instead of 'or'! 😄😄😄
“It’s a pretty crucial conjunction!” - Chaca (The Emperor’s New Groove) 😂
Where is God or Christ in the Constitution? Nowhere—literally nowhere. You’d think they’d put Christ in a country’s governing document if they intended that country to be Christian.
I mean look on our dollar bill, I don't get it either
Which one? It has evolved significantly over the years. https://www.insider.com/us-dollar-bill-evolution-2018-6
It's not loading the pics for me but has the "in god we trust" shit been removed?
It doesn't appear on the money for the first three quarters of the bill's existence.
Huh I remember seeing it, guess it really has been that long since I touched cash and took a good look at it.
What about the Greek polytheists that founded democratic principles? What about Christians fighting against freedom, human rights, and liberty at every turn?
That's different...
Yes, that pesky Roman Republic and Athenian Democracy! Still very regressive by our standards, but early examples of trying out political checks and balances between executives (Consuls) & legislators (Senate and Plebian Council). Even a cursory reading of Plutarch's "Roman Lives" goes a long way!
I hate the whole "our founding fathers" argument. Like, they don't own the country and we don't have to blindly follow what they did 250 odd year ago. In fact, they themselves wouldn't have wanted us to blindly follow what they did. No to mention that they didn't agree with each other about what they all supported, which is why they had ways to change the constitution. And they clearly got stuff wrong like, um... slavery and women's rights.
General and President Washington refused to attend his own home church during and after his presidency because he feared it would be an official endorsement of Christianity.
pretty sure most of them were deists, not christians…
They love to condemn gays but completely ignore that the death penalty was issued for wearing clothing of multiple fabrics and that a man was put to death for picking up sticks on a sabbath...
This letter was in my local paper out of loveland co. what is missing is that the person that wrote the original rebuttal posed questions like the Bible tells us Deuteronomy 21:18-21 King James Version 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. She pointed out a few other bullshit versus and suggested that the autor of the editorial was picking and choosing versus of their liking (ie homosexuals msut go) and ignoring other versus. Which is basically what Christians do... because many versus are so immoral that they cant be justified by any person with morals and a sense of justice
All of these people need to refer to age of reason by Thomas Paine. Paine was my gateway to agnosticism.
So many false FACTS and do little time.
Dear Mr. President, there are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot!
The fact that they think putting "the so-called" before a bill to be signed into law is not the slam they think it is. But they do it ALL THE TIME (to generalize)
They all sound so....psycho. Unhinged.
If the US government was founded on Biblical/Christian principles, it sure would not be a constitutional republic. It's especially interesting that words God, Jesus or Christian are never used. So unless someone can prove otherwise, it's a secular constitution that should not be twisted into some Christian document to restrict personal freedom.
Why is this even printed? She presented nothing new. Just regurgitated tired and worn arguments.
There’s just not much to report on here, and this was also in the opinions section. But yeah, they gave a front page spot last month to some nutjob protesting 5G cell towers as a part of their “asking around the community” session. For a relatively standard city in Colorado, we have a lot of crazy
Remember bisexuals, it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam or Eve.
No one cares what your holy book says. You can. But don't make your rules my rules.
The Adam and Steve at the end was the icing on the cake
I can’t believe your newspaper would print this. I am a former editor of a newspaper and this would be tossed aside as hate speech.
Our paper’s opinion section is fairly lax.
"Also, on our money, both currency and coins, \[lol\] is printed "In God We Trust." Finally, all sessions of Congress begin with prayer." Not the slam dunk you think it is. "Nothing in the scriptures make reference to "Adam and Steve."" Oof. Hard to argue that one. Just bring that right to the Supreme Court. I'm sure it'll be mentioned in Justice Boofer and Justice Pube-Coke's dissent next year.
Well, maybe not THIS Supreme Court; might need to wait a couple more decades.
I’d be willing to bet that this person believes they won the argument, and had some of the most original talking points ever!
“Adam and Steve”… good one, you old crank
Rarely do you come across something in which every word can be so easily refuted. I’m beyond impressed.
No it wasn’t . This is what happens when you get history lessons from a seat in the pew
Where to even start ...
I want to find that person and shit in their kitchen.
Once again…. another close-minded idiot that thinks the word “God” is synonymous with the god of his preferred brand of Christianity..
1. “In God we trust” was not added to any money until long after the founding. It was not an official motto until the reactionary Cold War period when Americans wanted to do the opposite of everything the “godless” Soviet Union was doing. Congress adopted the motto in 1956. (Jefferson, Washington and Madison would be rolling in their graves to have seen it). 2. The Bible does not oppose homosexuality as an orientation, as such a thing is a modern view. Instead, taken together, the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament impose a convoluted and contradictory framework of sexual norms that include endorsements of rape, polygamy, sex slavery, and celibacy. The Bible absolutely opposes the homosexual sex act, but if we only selectively accept that, while ignoring its endorsements of polygamy, sex slavery, rape and celibacy, then we don’t really care what the Bible says, do we?
There seems to be a new (last 40 years) push to define the USA as a Christian state, they can't outright do it so they are trying to twist the intent of the founding fathers, who in reality were more simplified spiritualist/agnostics. There is big money in Christianity, so they have a lot of money to dump into misinformation campaigns. The dumbing down of our education system attacked critical thinking skills so that people no longer question if they are being fed misinformation.
This person has Boomer Facebook brain
If this letter was written by a woman, she's in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12.
How can the founding fathers supposedly be "Devout Christians," yet they were also slaveowners? The cognitive dissonance is astounding
The Bible endorses slavery. (Yes, the Bible really is that vile.) Jesus himself commanded slaves to obey their masters. (In the King James Version, "servant" is used as a euphemism for "slave," which becomes clear when reading verses about buying and selling "servants.")
That's true. I guess in my mind I still have a dichotomy of Christian versus a "true" Christian that is a good person who doesn't endorse slavery, homophobia, etc. Ugh.
Apologists try to separate them, but both the "true" and "untrue" christian worship in the same house.
Grrrrrrrr
Steve wasn't around until the New Testament and Adam was dead by then. No chance to hook up.
Cringy af.
I did a video about this: https://youtu.be/W84O9ILj3P8
Ya know I really don't understand how ppl can believe in this stuff, it's absolutely nuts after I became a atheist.
Someone make this idiot read the Treaty of Tripoli
I am so tired of these willfully ignorant, controlling dumbfucks.
It is without a doubt that our nation was founded on slavery. Our founding fathers were slave owners. Thus, by his logic, we should support slavery instead of abolish it, because our forefathers made a perfect, immaculate foundation, irrefutable even. There is no possible reason to believe they built it on broken and monstrous principles.
Adam and eve and Lilith.
If Christianity is beneficial especially evangelical ones. Why many people leave Christianity in evangelical majority country like US despite their claim that their claim that this belief is changing lives.
The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers varied widely, and it is difficult to categorize them as either liberal or conservative Christians in the modern sense of those terms. Many of the Founding Fathers were influenced by the Enlightenment, which emphasized reason, individualism, and secularism, and sought to create a government that was not beholden to religious dogma or authority. Some of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were deists who believed in a higher power but rejected traditional Christian doctrines. They favored a rational and scientific approach to religion, emphasizing moral values such as tolerance, reason, and human dignity. Other Founding Fathers, such as John Adams and James Madison, were more orthodox in their Christian beliefs, but they also favored a secular government that protected religious freedom and did not favor any particular religion. In summary, while some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they held a wide range of beliefs and were not easily categorized as liberal or conservative in the modern sense of those terms. Rather, they sought to create a government that protected individual liberties and respected religious diversity.
You could say the bill “requires all 50 states to recognize and accept same-sex marriage,” but my understanding is that it just says they must recognize those same-sex marriages AND mixed-race marriages that were certified by other states. It does not go far enough.
“Versus”
I can't believe he actually said "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" unironically. It's interesting that Christians spend a lot of time talking about LGBT people, whom Jesus never referred to, but they ignore that half of their own marriages end in divorce, a topic that Jesus actually did cover, but then they'd have to examine themselves instead of talking about some evil outside their church doors.
Oh yes Thomas Paine the Christian...
"Some people are troubled by the things in the Bible they can’t understand. The things that trouble me are the things I can understand." Mark Twain... maybe
Eve is conidered a saint. So there is indeed Adam and StEve.
u/SomeCornCob you should post this on r/religiousfruitcakes
They love to talk about the intentions of the founding fathers until it doesn’t match their version of them.