1213
The world if christian lived by christian values
(piefedimages.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.com)
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 Sep 2025
1213 points (99.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
10960 readers
2743 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:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If i remember correctly (it's been a while), then the Bible becomes a lot more coherent if you throw out the old testament, and keep to the new testament only - which actually is what christians should do, because the sacrifice of Jesus is a new covenant which supercedes the old one with Moses.
If you keep to the NT, then there isn't so much ambiguity - evangelicals who cite from the OT are even more backwards than catholicism itself is.
Not exactly. In fact, this is a gross oversimplification. The New Testament contradicts itself and plenty of mainstream Christian beliefs. Different NT authors have drastically different views of OT law, ranging from the view that the OT law should still be upheld (Matt 5:17 where Jesus says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."), to completely rejecting the old covenant (Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear."), and a range of nuanced views in-between. You can torture the text to reconcile to make it fit a particular view, but that's not an honest way of reading a text.
Also, wholesale rejecting the OT on the basis that the new covenant supercedes the old is incredibly problematic. I can understand saying that in the case of a contradiction between OT and NT you would go with the latter (although even that is an issue), but if you reject the OT, you're missing out on essential developments in Israelite and Jewish history, thought and literature which is essential to understand the NT. It's bad enough as it is that the tradition of mystical literature which so heavily influenced post-exilic Jewish and early Christian thought is overlooked. The last thing people who want to understand the NT need to do is throw out the OT.
The sermon on the Mount and specifically Matthew 5:18 I think or something like that explicitly says that nothing from the law has been removed or invalidated by Jesus.
This is a common sentiment in American Christianity but it doesn't really seem to be backed up by the text.
I think most modern exegesis of that verse rather tightly constrains it to rabbinical law, bearing in mind that the Sadducees and those upstart Pharisees (of which JC was one) were battling out questions of the law at the time JC was doing his thing.
So just saying I think you're right. Otherwise, no football on Sunday for many multiple reasons!
Oh. Well how convenient for them.
You mean the one that starts with four tellings of the same story, that contradict each other heavily ?
Including a fabricated census of the entire Roman Empire which for some reason required men to return to their birth towns and left no historical or archaeological record
Jesus himself says that he didn't come to abolish the old laws, but to fulfill them.
The whole book is worthless.
Jesus came to fulfill the 10 Commandments and spread the word of God being a loving God; not the ritualistic laws of the early-Israelites.
I’d say the book has meaning, but the lens in which one applies when reading it matters. There’s the text as it’s written, there’s the perspectives of the respective authors, and then there is your own lens being three main ways of reading it.
I think the biggest issue is people that are Christians in name only that pick up a Bible and call themselves Christians without even knowing the teachings of Jesus. The types that think what you do on Earth doesn’t matter so long as you believe, so they go on to do near the exact opposite of Jesus. A short comic about this: Supply Side Jesus
If that god was really loving, then hell wouldn't be a punishment for rejection.
I'm not convinced that any gods are real, but I'm convinced that the Bible god absolutely isn't.
The mature-faith circles I hear say that it's a state of mind that is the only place for one who disagrees with God to go, because God fills up that much space otherwise and it wouldn't be fair for them to experience God when they have clearly stated that they don't want to.
That's an oxymoron.
I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was 8.
I was only talking from their perspective, not ours.
Hell doesn’t exist in the Bible, it’s something later Christians thought up as a moral basis to keep people following the rules and to show up to their specific church services. I mean the church was even selling indulgences for a long while there which was a way of buying yourself a space in heaven, which goes against what Jesus talked about.
The Bible is all made up stories anyway. Why not keep adding to the fiction?
The Christian Bible ultimately is about telling the story of a kind and caring God, and that we are made in God’s image. The early Israelite God, in the Torah and Old Testament, by comparison, was more focused on adhering to strict rules, traditions, and collective punishment for lapsing in the early Israelites commitment to the rules and traditions.
I do agree that there are parts of the Bible which were added where the authenticity of the author was forged. For instance, many of the books attributed to Paul were not written by him, yet they were made to sound like they were his instructions. Most notably, the whole section about women not being allowed in leadership positions in the church. Hierarchies were not inherently parts of Jesus’ teachings at all, but it’s how the early Christians chose to organize themselves. It’s how they maintained aspects of the patriarchy as well.
Some people would agree with you that the Bible should have kept being added to. In some ways that’s seen among some Christian faiths, although few add to the Bible itself for those stories. For instance, with Catholics there are the Saints which followers of the faith learn about, not generally all of them but one(s) that align with the aspects of their faith they care most about. Such as a focus on education, feeding the hungry, healing the sick and injured, etc.
Genesis, Exodus, and Job were fabricated from older myths. They literally didn't happen. Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark, and none of the gospels have known authors.
It's a book of badly written fiction with a few embellished events tossed in.
Even then, might wanna stick to the Gospels