#no where in the bible is the a condemnation of abortion

[jeffbezos--official]

*this is not a joke, or satire like the rest of this page*

If you are in a state that is/has put forward motions to criminalize abortions after the supreme court ruling, you need to be prepared.

If you have the means, stock up on plan B. Don't get brand name unless you really really want to as generic is significantly cheaper.

Do not just go and buy out your area's local stores of emergency contraceptives.

It is imperative that those are available in emergencies. Instead order them online. Daddy Bezos has options available for purchase, tho as you may have guessed from the way I post on here, I personally believe alternatives would be better.

Nevertheless, here's a link to the cheapest version I could find on Daddy Bezos' shop

My Choice Emergency Contraceptive 1 Tablet

[anamericangirl]

"No it doesn't. That's a common misconception people who don't know or understand the Bible have."

Considering the fact that the original Hebrew text of the Ordeal of Bitter Water explicitly mentions the plant silphium, a now extinct herb that was one of the most used natural abortifacients, yes it does.

The Bible explicitly states a method of how to inducing a miscarriage as a form of abortion in wives believed to be unfaithful.

Another case of a mistranslation mucking up your entire religion into believing bunk, the same way that the original Hebrew translation of Leviticus 18:22 said that a man should not lie with an apprentice/child as he does with a woman. An explicit condemnation of pedophilia and teacher student relationships that was purposely mistranslated to vilify homosexuality.

You are incorrect. The ordeal of bitter water does not explicitly mention silphium in the original Hebrew text and in fact that plant is explicitly mentioned nowhere in the original text at all. I don't know where you got that information but you've been misinformed.

Numbers 5 is not describing an abortion. The NIV is the only translation that uses the term "miscarry" and that's because everyone else thinks the NIV mistranslated the word. If you want to talk about the original Hebrew text, the Hebrew word they translated as "miscarry" is naphal, which means to fall, waste away or rot. It has an incredibly broad interpretation and the rest of the passage heavily implies it is referring not to a miscarriage or an abortion but to infertility. So if you want to pretend you know all about the Hebrew text and what was """"""actually"""""" meant at least be consistent.

Also, the popular talking point that every translation of the Bible mistranslated what, in Hebrew, was referring to pedophilia as homosexuality has been rebutted by scholars since it began popping up. Every actual theologian, biblical scholar, etc who have made careers studying this very thing all always come to the same conclusion that the word is a direct condemnation of homosexuality and not pedophilia (although pedophilia is absolutely condemned, just not in this particular passage). The word was coined by Paul himself. He created a compound word with two words that were widely known and would be understood, by the people he was speaking to, as an explicit condemnation of grown men having sexual relations with each other. There's literally no debate about it among scholars.

I know all you reddit atheists think you're biblical scholars and experts in the Hebrew text but there's no real debate on this issue outside of r/atheists.

[lapsed-lys]

April 1st 2024 (Not an April's Fool)

Entry #019

I can't be a good Catholic because...

(TW: general negativity regarding Catholicism, mention of queerness, implicit description of abortion)

Because I'm queer.

Because I can't study the Bible as they don't sell any nearby.

Because I could never speak a word about my religion where I live.

Because I can't grasp my mind over blindly obeying the Church until I have questionned all their teachings.

Because I can't bring myself to call my close ones murderers over abortions when I'm haunted with their crying in my arms.

My faith and my religion are opposing all the time. It's so tiring, sometimes I wish I could stop life just to take a break to talk with God. I pray to Him, one that does not condemn my "lifestyle". I go to a Church that finds me an abomination.

I am a bad Catholic, a good heretic even.

[goldkirk]

Top 10 mental health/similar books you've read in the past year? (or documentaries, or podcasts, anything is cool!)

this is gonna be all over the place and way more than just 10, sorry, but i'd say my top most impactful things-of-any-type I've encountered in the past year are the following.

Books:

The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog

Reparenting the Child Who Hurts

Take Back Your Life

Zak George's Dog Training Revolution

When the Body Says No

Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents

The Case Against Conversion "Therapy": Evidence, Ethics, and Alternatives

On Tyranny

Random:

Plato's allegory of the cave

How Tax Brackets Actually Work

UV Camera Reveals The Best Way to Apply Sunscreen to Your Face

Rhett's story of his personal religious deconstruction timeline

This guy's gut wrenchingly honest, timeline-jumping, clearly articulated, and wryly humorous series explaining his long and truly wild journey to atheism

This 6 minute interview with Liz Hunter where she talks about growing up in a cult without realizing it

Church Services Are Designed to Influence You. Here's How.

Former Evangelical leader Josh Harris on renouncing Christianity

therapist talking about the lies purity culture tells women

a therapist's take on religions and emotional manipulation

Polygamist Cult Founder’s Daughter, Rachel Jeffs, Gives Her First TV Interview

Evangelical blinders/guarding your heart

Big Joel's video on anti-abortion propaganda (large focus on the movie Unplanned)

I fantasized about martyrdom too

Omnipotence paradox & laws of logic

"Cults Inside Out" with Rick Alan Ross

An analysis of the Christian martyr complex via the first three God's Not Dead movies

Raised in a cult and finding her voice (an interview with Liz Hunter)

No True Joy Outside the Church?

Pray Away: A Therapist's Take on Conversion Therapy

Nothing Fails Like Bible History - Episode 1

Personal Autonomy Post-Religion

WHAT do you do after LEAVING a cult? (life after the moonies) (this girl is SO FUNNY)

TheraminTrees's (therapist) YouTube videos, especially:

betting on infinity

rebuttals to 'betting on infinity'

false equivalence | qualiasoup and theramintrees

punishing doubt | religious condemnation of thought

'science' of the gaps

commanded to love | performing false emotions for tyrants

grooming minds | the abuse of child indoctrination

degrading love -- part one | how religions distort the meaning of 'love'

degrading love -- part two | how religions distort the meaning of 'love'

living with abusers

imaginary defects | when dogmas label us flawed

creating sickness | recovering from religion

Philosophy Tube's YouTube videos, especially:

Abortion & Ben Shapiro (you might need to pause this one a few times just to mull things over on your own time)

Ignorance & Censorship

Queer✨

Logic

Who's afraid of experts?

Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story

Social Constructs

The Hidden Rules of Modern Society

FundieFriday's YouTube videos, especially:

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

THE CREATION MUSEUM & ARK ENCOUNTER

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

The post 9/11 Evangelical fever dream that is Jesus Camp

MICHAEL & DEBI PEARL

THE MARTYRS OF COLUMBINE

iilluminaughtii's youtube videos, especially:

The Abusive Practices of Focus on the Family

The IBLP & ATI

Ex-Fundie Diaries' YouTube videos, especially:

Christian Nationalist Child Indoctrination Cult: AWANA

Christian Nationalist Propaganda | Inside My Homeschool "Science" Binder

Christian fundamentalism doesn't always look like the Duggars

Anxiety & Anger Are a Sin in Christian Fundamentalism | Emotional Child Abuse

Child Abuse | Spanking, Neglect, & Psychological Punishments in Christian Fundamentalism

Documentaries:

Scientology and the Aftermath

Pray Away

Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult

Lots of others on YouTube and Netflix I'm sorry it's just hard to dig them all up lol, if I have energy some other time I will

Hope this helps someone!

[nodynasty4us]

From the November 15, 2023 article:

RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel ... wants the remaining Republican candidates all to herself. In particular, she doesn't want them "debating" for anyone else.... Specifically, Bob Vander Plaats, CEO of the Family Leader, an Iowa evangelical group, is planning a "forum," at which all the candidates could salute Jesus and say that their favorite Bible passage is the (nonexistent) one where He condemns abortion.... Word got back to McDaniel that some or all of them had promised Vander Plaats that they were going to be there, come hell or high water. After all, nobody is going to watch the fourth and probably final debate, but every evangelical in Iowa is going to watch the Vander Plaats show. So she put her tail between her legs and backed off. After all, Vander Plaats calls his event, where all the candidates will be on stage talking about Jesus and politics a "forum," not a "debate." Presto! It is fine to participate. Problem solved.

[poetessinthepit]

Numbers 5 is not advocating abortion in the "pro-choice" sense. It is literally saying if you, the husband, suspect your wife to have been adulterous, the priest can force her to drink a concoction that will induce a miscarriage - because your wife is your property. She has no say in the matter whatsoever. She is not having an abortion because she doesn't want to carry a baby - her husband is killing the baby because he suspects her of infidelity. This is a punishment. It is also worth noting that many elements of Numbers, and other Old Testament law books, are not followed by Christians because Jesus brought forth a new covenant.

Nowhere did I say that Numbers 5 is advocating for abortion "in the pro-choice sense" nor would I ever argue that. You're putting words in my mouth. The pro-choice movement is a modern phenomenon and it would be pretty ludicrous to look at ancient law and try to apply a modern socio-political context to it. However, the so called "pro life" anti-abortion movement does exactly that when they try and use the Bible to justify their stance. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns abortion and this particular verse is arguably reccomending or advising and at the very least neutrally describing the performance of what is essentially a chemical abortion in the case on a woman who has committed adultery. It gives the exact steps on how to perform this procedure. Nowhere does this say that this act is sinful, immoral or wrong. In fact, it's performed by a priest! It's seen as a just punishment for adultery which is actually specifically condemned in the Bible. It essentially refutes the premise that abortion is wrong according the Bible. I personally do find this verse to be barbaric and sexist but I also don't use this book to justify my political positions. I'm not advocating women who get pregnant through adultery be punished with abortions. I merely advocate that all women have the right to an abortion if that is what they seek.

I'm also well aware of the new covenant and that verses like this one in the old testament amongst others are the reason that most sects of Judaism consider abortion to be fine and actually think it should be protected. Religions disagree on the morality of abortion which is why one could argue that it violates religious freedom protections to ban abortion.

I don't think the new testament nullifies this verse. This is the only place in the Bible where abortion is specifically mentioned and it's not in a negative way. I think that is significant.

[papirouge]

im interested in converting to christianism but im confused as i dont know what are the differences between christians, catholics, orthodoxes and protestants. how do i chose? how do i know which one is the correct one? i heard there are also several different bibles? i got one free "the bible" in my non-christian country christians and i dont even know which version it is

Basically speaking, the biggest crux of opposition between Catholics and Protestans is that Catholics worship Mary, pray with idols and sustain the idea the Mary remained virgin AFTER Jesus birth, when the very two commandments and Matthew 12:46-50 contradict such positions😭 They also have a whole literature called Cathechism where they establish a set of rules and you'll often see Catholics pull it out to explain their doctrine...to defend their belief system going against what Bible explicitely condemns (ex: praying for the dead, idols, saints worshipping, etc).

Protestant have their whole share of questionnable beliefs too - especially USAmerican evangelicals. They're the ones who've been managing the church like a whole business - which is ironically what they've been accusing the Catholics of doing during the Roman Catholic Empire era lel. They don't have the same concern about social issues as Catholics do (in Europe, many NGO are Catholics, and help the poor, offer shelter, etc) ; they tend to be quite hypocrite too : like they'll go off against gays and abortion but will be silent about any social injustice they'll snarkily downplay as "woke culture".....

I'm not familiar with Orthodoxy but it comes off as Catholicism lite™️

And you don't have to "choose" any denomination, anon. There are thousands of Christian denomination, which is a heresy. There shouldn't be any divison within the Church. No denomination is "correct" in the sense that there shouldn't be any to begin with.

And yes, there are countless versions of the Bible. I often see debate of USAmericans as of which version is the best (King James Version, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) and all of this so.....pointless and tone deaf? 1 BILLION of Christian and there you have, a handful of self centered english speaking Americans arguing over one (1) version of the bible just because...?

Real talk anon: unlike what's often being said, the Bible can be altered. Look at the Jehova Witnesses. Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons.... Even during slavery, slave owners cropped some Bible passages (about freedom) to not give ideas to slaves....

Yes, the Bible is the Word of God, but these words on a paper can be altered and manipulated. The Bible isn't some sort of magical book turning any person reading it a Christian granted you read the "right" version. Some atheists have read the Bible more than actual Christians. I knew an agnostic Christian theologian student ; she was studying the Bible while not being Saved herself. Jehova Witnesses do think that "their" bible is the real deal. Same for Mormons or whatever other Christian sect.

That's why THE HOLY SPIRIT is so important. Because while human can twist and alter words written on a book, the Holy Spirit will never lie and no one can bend it over falsehood. That's precisely why Jesus is called "the Word" "made flesh" (John 1). By PRAYING and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, you can be set free from the bondage of falsehood and He will guide you towards truth.

I've read/watched plentiful of testimonies from former Mormons/Jehova Witness/7th Day Adventist/witches/satanists, etc, etc and guess what? Not a single one said "I read the KJV version of the Bible and realized I was wrong". It just....doesn't work this way. They instead went to a point were they got troubled in their belief, prayed, and asked for the Lord to show them the way. This leap of faith happened because of the Holy Spirit ; the change of heart that changes us from sinners to repentance comes from God, not a Bible version.

You'll be good with your random Bible anon. It's already a blessing you've got one between your hands. Just rely to the Lord, not a name stamped Bible version to build a real relationship with God. First Christians didn't have any Bible to build up their walk with God (could they even read?). Yes, the Bible is extremely helpful, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of Christianhood.

[ambafaerie]

Nimia is the both the prodigal daughter and the metaphorical leper that was chased away by the villagers the old man talked about in the beginning of the film whose return would revive the town.

Hear me out.

Himala employs religious themes that harken back to stories from the Bible, specifically the parallels drawn between Jesus Christ’s mission on Earth and Elsa’s “faith healing” endeavor. Lepers were one of the main ostracized groups in the Bible, along with the disabled and prostitutes who were deemed undesirable and unclean by society.

Nimia, in her backstory, committed the “sin” of having sex outside of marriage then getting an abortion after falling pregnant which made her a pariah in the extremely religous town of Cupang which led to her leaving for Manila. When Nimia comes back she is still a pariah in her hometown with only her father and a few welcoming her with open arms, because of her past and because she is now a prostitute, a job that women are looked down and condemned for, especially in Catholic countries like the Philippines. She opens a brothel at the same time Elsa’s “miracles” are at its height.

Their separate endeavors bring many people to Cupang reviving the town with tourism, except many scenes show the town is still the same the townspeople are desperate riding high on the “miracles” to ignore the realities of their situation. Elsa’s apostles forcibly shut down Nimia’s brothel “Heaven” not entirely because they find it abhorrent but also to cut down the competition. Nimia decides to leave the town again for Manila.

I don’t know where I’m going with this but the point I’m trying to make is Nimia is the leper that was run out of town except replace leper with prostitute since leprosy had become a rare case in modern times. Nimia is one of the few grounded characters in the film along with one of the apostle’s husband to see the miracles for what is and opt for a realistic solution in their situation.

[automatismoateo]

Where does the bible say life begins at conception? It doesn't. Where does the bible say killing a fetus is murder? It doesn't. Christians need to STFU and BTFO. via /r/atheism

Where does the bible say life begins at conception? It doesn't. Where does the bible say killing a fetus is murder? It doesn't. Christians need to STFU and BTFO.

Even though Adam was fully formed, practically an adult, when god created him, his life only began when God breathed life into his nostrils (Gen. 2:7). The Bible often refers to the "breath" or "breath of life," neshamah or nishmat chayyim, entering people's bodies to give life and leaving them to take it away (Gen. 7:21-22; Job 34:14-15; 1 Kings 17:17; also see Rev. 11:11 and Mark 15:39 which use pneuma in the same way as the Hebrew nishmat chayyim).

A number of words used in these passages that are traditionally translated "soul" or "spirit" actually mean something else. The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally rendered "soul" in English translations of the OT, refers to animate life, living beings or even the person or human being considered as a whole; another Hebrew word, ruach, traditionally rendered "spirit," literally means "breath" or "wind." Ruach is similar to neshamah, another word for breath. The NT words usually translated "soul" and "spirit," psyche and pneuma, are closer to the ancient Hebrew nephesh and ruach in terms of meaning and usage.¹

So much for the traditional Christian arguments about when ensoulment begins, which date from the Latin theologian Augustine's time and are entirely unbiblical.

A number of OT passages are incompatible with the belief abortion is murder. Numbers 5:11-31 gives instructions on how to cause miscarriage or, at the very least, cause bodily harm to pregnant women suspected of adultery. These same adulterous women were put to death regardless of whether they were pregnant or not (see Gen. 38, despite 9:6; additionally, Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22). A prophet of God even wished death upon fetuses (Hos. 9:14). None of these passages make sense if, biblically speaking, the intentional killing of a fetus is murder.

The killing of a fetus while two men are fighting (Ex. 21) is interpreted in the Greek Septuagint as a civil tort and by orthodox Jews as permitting abortion under certain circumstances. In the NT, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles contradicted these interpretations. This indicates Christian condemnation of abortion as murder is entirely derived from extra-biblical sources.

Most bible verses used to support the idea abortion is murder are taken out of context. Jer. 1:5 refers to divine foreknowledge. Similarly, Ps. 139 refers to divine foreknowledge. People who use this passage to support their belief life begins at conception are completely ignoring the language:

you knitted me together in my mother's womb

Knitting and forming aren't instantaneous, but ongoing processes. At some point the fetus becomes viable, but not at conception.

1.) Modern scholars agree the ancient Israelites had no concept of soul, the immortal spiritual essence that survives death, a Greek invention that was only absorbed by some Jewish authors long after Alexander's conquest of Palestine. See scholar James Kugel's discussion of ancient Hebrew beliefs about the afterlife in The Great Shift: Encountering God in Biblical Times (2017):

Most people nowadays, if they think about the soul at all, think of it as a kind of spiritual entity, the body’s opposite and complement. Souls are often deemed to be immortal, as opposed to bodies, which perish and disintegrate. But this was not the soul as it was conceived throughout much of the biblical period.

[...]

Rather, for much of the biblical period, there simply were no souls. People were people. They had breath that came into their lungs and went out again, and so long as this happened they were alive; it is this that neshamah mostly refers to. Similarly, when ancient Israelites talked about their nefesh or their ruaḥ, for the most part they meant nothing like “soul” in our sense; they mostly meant “me.”

Submitted May 15, 2022 at 09:18AM by Elbrujosalvaje (From Reddit https://ift.tt/b1RLAlV)

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

No religious text that condones infanticide (and I don't mean abortion, although the Bible condones this too) should be used to create laws.

1 Samuel 15:3 has God ordering the genocide of the Amalekites, specifying the slaughter of infants. You can google it.

Now, whenever I bring this up and ask prolifers how they justify it, they either go silent or say, "You're taking it out of context."

Really? Were Amalekite infants born with superhuman powers that let them kill the Israelites? Did they have an accelerated rate of development that not only allowed them to wield swords but to outmatch trained soldiers?

And this book is used to condemn abortion. Nevermind Numbers 5 orders abortion in some cases. Nevermind no where else in the Bible speaks of abortion. But Christian prolifers don't want to talk about those verses.

[swampy-sayin-it]

Could Be Rough Times Ahead

“When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, a person on the housetop must not go down to get things out of his house, a person in the field must not return to get his cloak. -- Matthew 24:14-18

You have heard it, seen, and maybe even felt that there are wars, and rumors of more wars, diseases, famines, and persecutions happening. Some theologians have been spouting the dispensationist pre-tribulation rapture since the 19th century. The question is if that is true then why is the Church beginning to see and feel the pains of persecution?

The Apocalypse of John To get to the point here one has to have a cursory understand of what apocalyptic literature is. Without that basic understanding then there are many bad and dangerously false teachings to come out of this book. First of all, this type if literature was not unusual during the times of Christ. It was developed to hide messaging from the Romans through types and symbolism. Second, it was to convey current messaging of the day of what is going on and hope for the future. Third, while the types and symbolism were meant for the ancient days it was written in one can get a glimpse of prophecy in the messaging.

The Church is not mentioned by name after chapter two but is referred to throughout the book. The Church is what the book is all about. Suffering persecutions on Heaven and Earth the Church does prevail in the end and that is the hope of glory right there. So, not see the word Church mentioned in the book after chapter 2 does not prove anything for a pre-trib rapture.

However, in the two chapters where Jesus is messaging the churches the messages is for what was happening to the various churches back the day and what is going on in today's churches. The message is this, "get back in line with the gospel."

Jesus Said It The lines of scripture that this is revolved around tells us the Jesus makes the reference that the Church is going to go through some hard times. Take a look around and open your eyes. Wars all over the place, starvation creeping in due to human interference, and persecution of the Church is stepping up in very destructive ways.

Persecution has now come to North America. Canada was the first to outlaw speaking off parts of the Bible that condemned homosexuality because it offended people. The lockdowns were on people of faith but not the stoners and drunks as liquor and refer stores were to remain open. I guess that meant getting high substances instead of God was a preventative of the fake flu.

Now that the fake flu has passed the Church still gets persecuted for standing up for the Biblical principles of life and morality. Christians going off to prison for the crimes of praying in front of an abortion gulag. Satanic sycophants launching attacks on pro-life clinics unabated and uncharged with criminal offences. Churches getting desecrated and sometimes torched for the crime of upholding the cross of Christ boldly. By the way, you do not hear about those "feel good gospel" type of churches getting persecuted. Something to think about.

Now What Here comes the good part. Even though the Church is in for a rough ride just remember the good times are coming sooner than we think. Although I might not be all in on a pre-tribulation rapture I am down for a rapture to come. I firmly believe that before Jesus comes to bring the hammer down at Armegeddon we will all be making our ascension to meet Jesus in the air.

So, as we look around and see the coming of the Demonic army of the man-machines (Borg), brainwashed eunuchs, and the zombies from the vaccines it is all supposed to happen. When we see the Anti-Christ in the temple then get them bags packed. When you might land in jail for your faith just remember Paul and company wrote some of his more uplifting letters from prison cells. As much as it may seem to be all bad news remember the original Apostles all met a martyrs death save John. Are we much better?

[christianissue]

Read this excellent article written in 2014. They published it in The Huffington Post. Thats amazing in itself.

Christianity and Liberalism Cannot Exist Together

Added by Rick Hope on July 25, 2014. Saved under Blog, Christian Doctrine, Opinion, Religion, Rick Hope Tags: christianity

Can such a thing as a “liberal Christian” actually exist? Is it possible for Christianity and liberalism to co-exist?

Questions like this, when asked, may sound like they are meant in jest. But actually, they are not meant to be funny at all. In reality, the question reflects a quiet serious inquiry. And furthermore, the answer has some serious implications for the millions around the world who call themselves Christians. Another way of asking the question is this: Is it a reality that one can be both a Christian and a liberal at the same time?

To answer this, one must first consider some basic theological tenets: Jesus came to this planet centuries ago with only one thing in mind. He wanted to provide an escape for humankind from being eternally condemned. God knew that the use of animal sacrifices, that at the time were being offered for the atonement for sin, was ultimately never going to really work in the end. People were simply habitual sinners and had limited resources or patience for the endless sacrifices. Something else had to be done.

So, Jesus came and died on the cross, and in doing so, created a permanent method through which any human being could be delivered from eternal condemnation. This also made the road to salvation more direct, although not necessarily easier: One could simply be saved through faith in Christ alone. Without the cross, Christianity is without foundation and meaningless.

This is why truly dedicated Christians are known for quoting from the Word of God, the Bible, and trying to lead others to faith in Christ. Their salvation from hell is the primary motivation in everything they do. Their desire to see others saved from the same eternal condemnation is priority to them above anything else in their lives.

A liberal Christian, however, is an entirely different thing. They choose to define themselves by their beliefs and involvement in liberal movements above anything else. These liberal movements could be anything from abortion, to gay rights, to feminism, to racial advocacy, to affirmative action. Maybe they choose to become advocates for large entitlements and exemptions from the government. Liberal Christianity can manifest itself in so many different ways. However, one common aspect shared by all of these groups is that they are tied together by what they simply call the “love of Jesus.” This is a very nebulous term that is, in actuality, devoid of meaning.

Liberal Christians never talk about salvation. None of them talk at length about what Jesus did on the cross. Rather, they focus on something else. They seem to promote a type of lifestyle that is totally dependent on self. It is all about bettering one’s self, saving one’s self, relying on one’s own strength and action.

They will tell people that Jesus taught about accepting others, and for that reason, homosexuals must feel accepted and be allowed to celebrate their choice in lifestyle regardless of what the scripture says. They want to create a sort of utopia where everyone is fed and taken care of and nurtured. In the mind of a liberal, the best way to accomplish that dream is through the government.

The liberal Christians who embrace this concept simply miss the whole aim of Christianity. For them there is no accountability. There is no challenge for their ethos to line up with what the Bible outlines for mankind. If one wants to do it and likes the way it feels, then go ahead. There is a total embrace of everything in today’s society. Liberal Christianity is not centered on Christ at all, but, instead, it is centered on the world.

What ends up being offered is a buffet style Christianity, allowing people to take the portions of the Bible that make them feel good while ignoring everything else. When challenged on what they choose to believe, they tell the accuser that he is judgmental and misquote a verse in the Bible where Jesus told us to “judge not.”

In reality, the whole objective of that verse is not to inform the reader that it is wrong to judge, but, rather, to be painfully aware of the measuring stick that is being used. It is, after all, very common for individuals to hold others to standards that are rather impossible.

For sure, there are many who profess Christianity who require perfection from those around themselves and ignore their own problems. There are others who will spend the majority of their time quibbling over the inconsistencies of others instead of following the commands of God in obedience.

In short, all of the warnings we find in the Bible do not mean that the act of judgment is always a negative action. The reality is that we will all be judged in the end by God’s standards as put forth in His Word.

The life of a Christian liberal is not centered on Christ nor is it based on the Bible. This is proven by their defending the right to murder an unborn child or for the homosexual lifestyle to be glorified. For this reason, a new way is needed to attract supporters.

The easiest avenue to take is often a very poorly disguised New Age form of spirituality. It gives all the right connotations of being loving and having a spiritual type theme. They begin to use left-wing tactics to motivate their congregation and begin doing things that inflate a sense of self-worth and importance instead of the searching for and finding faith.

This New Age, feel-good type of faith, is not really faith at all. Rather, it takes the basic Christian structure of community and church and makes it into something more attractive to those who are secularists. All through the history of the progressive movement are individuals who use their position inside their faith to garner support of causes that are extra-Biblical.

It is not enough for anyone to profess to be a Christian or even a Muslim. To claim a faith is to actually hold to the core beliefs of that faith. Otherwise, God is being created in their image. He becomes a god who holds to what they want to be true.

In short, the answer to the original question is “no.” Christianity and liberalism cannot coexist. Once someone turns from faith in the scripture and from the laws of God, they have designed their own religion. This is America, and people are free to do that if they choose. But please do not call it Christianity. Christianity is the coming to a relationship with God through a faith in Jesus Christ in response to the sacrifice He endured. To call it anything else is quicksand.

Opinion by Rick Hope

[lunarsilkscreen]

TW: Rape

In the legal system, rape can be a legally binding contract. A child needs two parents, it doesn't matter if one of the two people were unwilling. Now you have to be with your rapist forever. "Because of the child."

What example does that set?

In queer rape, or non-consensual non-procreation rape. It becomes muddled. Since people only care about the child produced. And nobody else.

Until AIDs came into being we had all but forgotten about STDs even though people suffered from them. Even during rape cases or non-disclosure to assenting parties.

What example does it set that we said "Rape is ok if it's hetero-sexual" and "only the gays get STDs?".

Because God likes rape as long as it produces children!

That's the example that Christians (as a whole) have decided for the United States. That rape is OK.

When I say that, they point out the commandments, or certain Bible verses. Until I ask "What about conception?" And they respond: "that's a different matter entirely! The child matters more now."

Missing the point that if a rape produces children, and you do nothing about it, than you have children from rape. With unloving, uncaring parents. You have set the example that children don't matter at all. Producing them does.

John 16:21 says that "A woman is in pain because she's having a near-death experience in childbirth. And her love for her child brings her back to life."

So you'd condemn a raped woman to death because she doesn't love her rapist. Just because the child is more important than the mother. You'd condemn that child to a life without knowing love. Creating a world without it.

Genesis 3:16 says something similar, but that her love for her husband will make her wish to produce children. And that will also get her through childbirth.

Again, these versus say something very specific. Love should precede sex. And rape should never happen. Forcing a woman to birth for a man she does not love, to produce a child whom will not know love. That is the definition of evil in my eyes.

The bible says so. Deuteronomy says that a man must pay his rape victim a dowry, and must provide for her as long as he lives. I assume marriage meant something different than it does now. Multiple wives and what not. Deuteronomy seems divorced from love, the premise of marriage.

I don't remember much about abortions in the Bible, but Exodus suggests that only a fine is deserved to a man who hits a pregnant woman and causes a still birth. It doesn't give that same fine to the woman.

I maintain that the women (To avoid confusion: those with working uteri. Stop accusing me of wishing to control bio-women. Ty.) Are the sole deciders in them wishing to give birth at any stage. (That's where I'll stop. This is about rape, and I have no say in who gives birth. Right?)

So we're at Rape.

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits incestuous relationships in same-sex relations. But not gay sex itself. Basically... Children or not, don't do incest!

There's nothing about women raping men. Must not be able to happen.

This is the argument we're at today. Men can rape because they force a woman to give birth. Men can't be raped except by other men.

So what if a sober woman gives consent to a sober man, becomes pregnant, and then takes the man to court for rape? What if the woman ties an unconscious man to a bed, rapes him, becomes pregnant, and then says it was consensual, or even allegeds that she was the one who was raped?

What then? Deuteronomy commands a rapist to indentured servitude for life. Except women?

My assumption, is at the very least the woman doesn't have to provide for the man, but for her child. And the man who did not rape doesn't owe her or the potential child anything.

This is a pretty severe dichotomy. If we bring STDs into the mix, it becomes worse. Both for queer and hetero relationships.

(Side Note: Google search needs to fix their Wikipedia references.)

I think we can agree that take is wrong. And heterosexual people do not consent to homosexual sex. Right? And nonconsensual sex is rape.

This is where a lot of the men land in the rape debate. And why it's an important question in today's day and age. It's also why the religious stand their ground on marriage before sex.

Arguably, there's no reason for them to stand against homosexual marriage either. But some of them will die on that hill, and I'm not exactly sure why.

Regardless. Women have a lot of power when it comes to the concept of rape, and men do not. Women need protections in the cases they are raped. I'm not denying that in any way. But what protections do men have in the reverse situation? There aren't any.

And while there's a patriarchal power imbalance, a woman is more likely to be slut shamed than to be believed in society. Legally, a man can also more likely afford a better attorney than a woman can. But in cases where the man cannot? Or in trials with a female judge and juries predisposed to believing that man cannot be raped? It gets muddled.

Right now, it is still very much in a man's favor. And the responses sound like "Quit whining, you have all the power". But when it starts to turn in the other direction, it'll come down hardest on poor men. (And harder on trans women because "we're predisposed to predatory behavior" or something.)

Then our only salvation will be testosterone blockers.

[disgruntledexplainer]

for new followers

for any new followers confused about my personal politics, I am not a conservative. I am not a liberal. I am not even a centrist. I do not subscribe to capitalism, communism, or especially fascism. to me, the republican and democrat parties are both despicable abominations, at odds with the will of God. I do not believe in the existence of race, let alone racial supremacy. I despise eugenics, I loath abortion, I condemn genocide and lynching. I call out greedy capitalists and crazy rioters alike. I support the poor, the working class, small business owners, academics, immigrants, jews, and catholic clergy above all other demographics unapologetically.

I do not allow my religious beliefs to be subject to my politics. my religious beliefs determine my politics. I am a Catholic, first and foremost, and that is where my loyalties lie. Not to political party, not to nation. only to faith.

personal experience has taught me that I can count on Jews to be my friends. Outside of my faith, it is only they who have consistently treated me like a person, despite my disability. I will always stand up for them, regardless of any danger to myself. I’ve also become rather fond of quakers over my time studying history to get my degree, but i’ve never actually met one.

this is a blog devoted to screaming into the void, because there is nowhere for me to physically scream IRL. on top of my autism, I also have depression AND an anxiety disorder, which makes my need to scream rather frequent, be it from too much noise, to much pressure, or just existing.

you will occasionally see me quote the Bible, encyclicals from Pope Pius XI, Pius XII, and Pope Francis, the writings of JRR Tolkien, or A Canticle for Leibowitz. you will also see me vacillate between extreme optimism and extreme pessimism. I will sporadically talk about history (my major), physics (my minor), or D&D (my hobby). my favorite superhero is Rex Salazar from Generator Rex, my favorite band is Rush, and my favorite books are A Canticle for Leibowitz, the Lord of the Rings, and Deltora Quest.

there are certain things on this blog I loudly denounce, while there are other things i’m quiet about. this is because I have a sequential order of things i’m willing to spend energy getting mad about, and some things are so low on the list that I can’t be bothered. for example, I do believe that homosexual relations are mortal sins. but you won’t hear me talk about it much, because it’s just not worth it. i used to hold the same hands-off approach to the trans issue, but they seem so intent on making themselves a hypocritical, hysterical, unironically bigoted nuisance that they completely flipped my stance on them over the course of three months. the dodger’s acceptance of the hate group known as the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” was the last straw, and for now they’ve managed to get into my top 10 things i scream about, up there with fucking q-anon.

oh yeah, I also “swear” a lot, though i never take the Lord’s Name in vain. ever. If bad words aren’t your cup of tea, this isn’t the best blog to follow.

if anything I have said here makes you uncomfortable, you might want to unfollow me to avoid my sporadic barrages of angry posts. just saying.

[bitcoinprophets]

Why Are Modern Christian Churches Anti-Biblical?

Christianity, the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, is one of the largest and most widespread religions in the world. And while there are many different sects and denominations of Christianity, they all share some common beliefs. One of these common beliefs is that the Bible is the word of God. Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God and contains everything we need to know about how to live a good life. So why, then, are modern Christian churches anti-biblical? If the Bible is the word of God, shouldn’t Christians be following it to the letter? In this blog post, we will explore some of the reasons why modern Christian churches are anti-biblical. From a lack of understanding of the Bible to a focus on personal interpretation, there are many factors that contribute to this trend. What is the Modern Christian Church? The Modern Christian Church has made a number of changes to the practice and beliefs of Christianity. These changes have led many to believe that the Modern Christian Church is anti-biblical. One of the biggest changes that the Modern Christian Church has made is in its attitude towards homosexuality. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual activity, but the Modern Christian Church has become much more accepting of it. This change has caused many people to believe that the Modern Christian Church is no longer following the teachings of the Bible. Another area where the Modern Christian Church has made changes is in its stance on abortion. The Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion, but it does value human life highly. The Modern Christian Church has become much more accepting of abortion, which has led many people to believe that it is no longer following the teachings of the Bible. The final area where the Modern Christian Church has made changes is in its attitude towards women. The Bible teaches that men and women are equal, but theModern Christian Church has become much more accepting of women in leadership positions. This change has led many people to believe that the church is no longer following the teachings of the Bible. What are the Beliefs of the Modern Christian Church? The modern Christian church has adopted a number of beliefs that are antithetical to the Bible. Among these are the belief that Jesus was not God incarnate, that He did not die on the cross for our sins, and that we are not saved by grace through faith alone. These false beliefs have led many people astray and have resulted in the modern church being far from biblical. What are the Practices of the Modern Christian Church? The modern Christian church has departed from many of the biblical teachings and practices that were followed by the early church. Instead of adhering to the Word of God, they have adopted the ways of the world in an attempt to make the gospel more palatable to a lost and dying generation. Some of the practices of the modern church that are contrary to Scripture include: 1. Ecumenicalism - The belief that all religions are equally valid paths to God. This is in direct opposition to what Jesus said when He claimed to be the only way (John 14:6). 2. Toleration of sin - The modern church has become so accepting that it now embraces behaviors that are clearly condemned in the Bible, such as homosexuality and premarital sex. 3. seeker-sensitive preaching - Rather than preaching against sin and calling people to repentance, many churches today offer feel-good messages that avoid any mention of sin or hell. This watered-down gospel does not save souls; it only tickles ears (2 Timothy 4:3-4). 4. Entertainment-based worship - Worship has become more about entertaining people than glorifying God. Many churches now feature rock bands, light shows, and other forms of worldly entertainment in an attempt to draw a crowd. But true worship is not about us; it’s about giving God our best (Exodus 32:1-6). Why Are Modern Christian Churches Anti-Biblical? The simple answer is that they have been infiltrated by satan. But let’s back up and look at how this could happen. Remember that Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And also Paul’s warning in Acts 20:29, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” So we see that even in the early days of the Church there were those who would try to lead astray. We also know that satan has been trying to thwart God’s plan since the beginning (see Genesis 3:1-7). So it stands to reason that he would continue his attack on the Church by sending false teachers. Now, there are a number of ways these false teachers can infiltrate the Church. They can do it by teaching false doctrine. They can do it by attacking the character of God or His Word. Or they can do it simply by living lives that are contrary to what Scripture teaches. All of these methods have been used throughout history to lead people astray from the truth of God’s Word. And all of them are being used today to turn people away from the true gospel message and into error. Conclusion There are a number of reasons why modern Christian churches are anti-biblical, but the most common one is that they've been influenced by secular culture. This has led to churches changing their doctrines and practices to be more in line with what the world around them believes, rather than what the Bible actually teaches. As a result, many Christians find themselves at odds with their church on key issues like sexuality, gender roles, and social justice. It's important to remember, though, that not all churches have succumbed to this way of thinking — there are still plenty of biblical churches out there who cling to God's Word as their authority. P.S. Actually, though, it goes much deeper than this so that almost everything about your neighborhood church is man-made, not godly and not biblical. Make sure to watch the video above. Read the full article

[pashterlengkap]

Herschel Walker asks what a pronoun is: “Pronouns? What’s a pronoun?”

Republican candidate for U.S. senator from Georgia and former NFL player Herschel Walker went on a rant opposing transgender rights where he claimed to not even know what a pronoun is. Flagpole, an Athens, Georgia website, said that Walker gave a speech at a Jackson County, Georgia warehouse last Tuesday with cisgender University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines. Gaines has been campaigning for several Republicans this cycle, telling her story of tying for fifth place at a swim meet with a transgender college swimmer and how that made her feel bad. Worse, in fact, than losing to four other cisgender swimmers. Walker himself also talked about his opposition to transgender girls participating in school sports. “That’s like having Herschel Walker compete against your daughter,” he said, even though Walker is a cisgender man and not a transgender woman and Gaines’s story is about school sports, not professional sports. “You don’t want me to compete against your daughter, do you?” “I will get men out of women’s sports,” he said, even though no one is lobbying for men to compete in women’s sports. His rant then became an attack on transgender people in general, saying that the Bible condemns trans identities. “I’ll tell you the definition of a man and a woman, because it’s in the Bible,” he said. “A man and a woman are two different people,” adding that men can’t get pregnant. “Pronouns? What’s a pronoun? I can tell you, a grenade don’t care about their pronouns,” he said in reference to transgender people being allowed to serve openly in the military. Walker has never served in the military, despite claiming in the past that he had a “military career.” Cisgender people – even cisgender people in the military – get referred to with pronouns all the time, and Walker didn’t explain how he thinks pronouns will decrease military readiness. LGBTQ leaders condemned Walker’s comments. “Herschel Walker’s Bible is not the law of the land – period,” Cameron Harrelson of the Athens PRIDE + Queer Collective told Flagpole. “This is clearly a desperate attempt by the far right to mobilize their most extreme base around issues that are complex and often misrepresented by conservatives and the media. “The last time I checked, Herschel Walker does not identify as trans, therefore his comparison and comments are irrelevant. This rhetoric by Walker is dangerous and only seeks to further marginalize a group of people who continually experience discrimination, hate, and extreme violence. Trans youth and individuals belong everywhere, from sports to leadership, end of discussion.” Incumbent Sen. Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) got 49.4% of the vote in November’s general election and Walker got 48.5% of the vote. Because of a Georgia law that requires a winning candidate to get over 50% of the vote, Warnock and Walker will face off in a runoff election on December 6. Numerous women have come forward saying that they have had children fathered by Walker or have been pressured to abort their pregnancies by Walker. His son, conservative influencer Christian Walker, says that he and his mother had to move six times to escape his father after he threatened to kill them. Christian Walker’s mother and Herschel Walker’s ex-wife Cynthia Grossman has said that Herschel Walker physically abused her and threatened to shoot her. Herschel Walker claims that all the new accusations from this year are lies. He has not denied his physical abuse of Grossman, which he claims he doesn’t remember. http://dlvr.it/SdQpFN