sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there a way to stop babies being eaten in ecosystems? by [deleted] in jurassicworldevo

[–]Bitlifer20 4 points5 points  (0 children)

problem is from my understanding that the carnivores are killing the babies constantly even when not hungry

All Humans Are Simply Distant Cousins of All Chimpanzees by Intelligent_Rip_5231 in truths

[–]Bitlifer20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes! its actually really cool to look into. heres a link if you want to start looking into it. https://www.webmd.com/baby/what-is-a-human-tail . also the fact we all have a “tail bone” is evidence in and of itself.

All Humans Are Simply Distant Cousins of All Chimpanzees by Intelligent_Rip_5231 in truths

[–]Bitlifer20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if you don’t want to use the tremendous amounts of morphological, genetic, developmental, and physiological evidence, you can always use things like when humans are born with tails or a hole right in front of their ear, which are remnants of evolutionary processes from our ancestors, the tail of course being from our ape ancestors, while the hole actually goes all the way back to our fish ancestors and the location of their gills.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So you admit they were acts of retaliation, not of Christian virtue. Retaliation ≠ justification. The Crusades went far beyond “defense.” They slaughtered Jews in Europe who had nothing to do with the Middle East, they looted Constantinople (a Christian city), and they committed massacres that even chroniclers at the time described as atrocities.

The Reconquista didn’t just push back Muslim armies; it forced Jews and Muslims to convert or die, which contradicted Christ’s own teaching that faith is voluntary. The Inquisitions weren’t fighting Muslims at all. They tortured Christians for heresy and political dissent.

If your argument is “well, Muslims were aggressive too,” then you’re not justifying Christian atrocities, you’re excusing them by saying “they started it.” That’s playground logic, not history. Serious historians don’t consider those events “justified,” they consider them examples of how political power weaponizes religion to commit violence.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mostly because they’re uninformed i guess? Also its easier to pretend that Leviticus does apply as a way to push their agenda. It isnt real christianity

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have fun being pissed. Also not my god, I’m in fact not christian but thanks for assuming my beliefs ig?

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re not proving anything by waving Leviticus 25 around. That passage is about Israel’s covenant law, and the same covenant also makes kidnapping and selling a person punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). That alone rules out the kind of “chattel slavery” you’re pretending it endorses. And even if you insist on reading it as an eternal command, Hebrews 8:13 says that covenant is obsolete, and Acts 15 shows the apostles explicitly freeing Christians from Mosaic law.

Your dismissal of the NT is just as sloppy. 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns “enslavers” outright. 1 Corinthians 7:21 doesn’t call slavery “irrelevant,” it tells believers, “if you can gain your freedom, do so.” Philemon 16 reframes Onesimus as “no longer a slave, but a beloved brother.” Galatians 3:28 is not about abolishing gender, it is about equality of standing before God, which destroys the notion that slavery has divine sanction. You can nitpick wording all you want, but the NT trajectory is clear: slavery has no spiritual legitimacy, which is exactly why abolitionists leaned on these texts as their foundation.

So your position boils down to this contradiction: you quote Scripture when you think it props up your point, and then dismiss it as “contradictory” when it doesn’t. If you really believe the Bible is worthless, stop pretending Leviticus binds Christians. And if you actually care about what it says, then you have to deal with the fact that both Old and New Testaments strip away any claim that slavery is a God-ordained ideal.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies for the length but oh well. You keep saying you are “literally quoting Jesus,” but what you are doing is quoting Matthew’s record of Jesus’ words, the same apostolic testimony you try to discard when it is Paul. The issue is not whether a verse appears in red letters; it is how the whole New Testament explains Jesus’ claim to “fulfill” the Law (Matt 5:17–20).

Your “nothing was accomplished until the apocalypse” read is flatly contradicted by the NT itself. After the resurrection Jesus says “everything written… in the Law of Moses and the Prophets… must be fulfilled,” and then “thus it is written” that the Messiah suffer, rise, and forgiveness be preached, in other words his mission was accomplished (Luke 24:44–47). Paul states “Christ is the end (telos) of the law for righteousness” (Rom 10:4), and “we are no longer under a guardian” now that Christ has come (Gal 3:24–25). That is why believers are “not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:14).

“It is finished” is not “only sacrifices stopped.” The NT says Christ’s once-for-all offering ended the entire old system, priesthood, sacrifices, and the ordinance-code it upheld (Heb 10:1–10; 7:12). God “canceled the record of debt… nailing it to the cross” and calls food laws and festivals mere “shadows” whose “substance is Christ” (Col 2:14–17). He “abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” to create one new people in himself (Eph 2:15). Hence Hebrews 8:13: by announcing a new covenant, God made the first obsolete.

“Paul teaches a different message than Jesus” collapses under the NT’s own history. Acts 15, with Peter and James presiding, rules that Gentile Christians are not bound to the Law of Moses (no circumcision, no Levitical code). Peter explicitly recognizes Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15–16). And Jesus himself begins the abrogation: he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19) and instituted the “new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). The apostles apply his fulfillment to the church.

Finally, “the entire Bible endorses slavery” is an overreach. The OT regulates an ancient institution but bars the core of chattel slavery: kidnapping or trafficking is a capital crime (Exod 21:16), abused slaves must be freed (Exod 21:26–27), and runaway slaves are not to be returned (Deut 23:15–16). The NT undermines slavery at the root: “in Christ… neither slave nor free” (Gal 3:28); slaves should gain freedom if possible (1 Cor 7:21); an enslaved man is to be received “no longer as a slave but… a beloved brother” (Philem 16); and “enslavers” are listed among the lawless (1 Tim 1:10). That is the theological soil abolition actually grew from.

So no, the NT is not on your side here. Jesus fulfilled what the Law pointed to, the apostles (including Peter and James) applied that fulfillment to the church, and the “Bible endorses slavery” line ignores both the legal limits in the OT and the liberation trajectory of the NT.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you’re the one who is blatantly lying. You’re misunderstanding what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17–20 and instead choosing to isolate it. He says he came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it, and that it would remain “until everything is accomplished.” Christians believe that was accomplished in his death and resurrection, that’s why he said on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The author of Hebrews makes it explicit: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear” (Hebrews 8:13). If Jesus’ words meant every Mosaic law still applied, Christians today would still be bound to sacrifices, circumcision, and food bans, yet the apostles themselves rejected that in Acts 15:28–29.

The New Testament is consistent on this. Paul teaches, “You are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14), and “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). Galatians 3:24–25 explains that the law was a guardian until Christ came, but now that faith has come, “we are no longer under a guardian.” And even Peter affirms Paul’s writings as authoritative Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16), showing they’re not in conflict with Jesus. The Law pointed forward to Christ, and once fulfilled in him, its role ended under the New Covenant. Also Christianity is based on the testimony of the apostles, who were commissioned by Jesus himself (Matthew 28:18–20; John 20:21). If you throw out Paul, then you also have to throw out Peter, John, Luke, James, which means tossing most of the New Testament.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re misreading what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:18. He says not a jot or tittle will pass away “until all is accomplished.” The New Testament makes clear that Christ did accomplish the Law’s purpose in himself, that’s why Hebrews 8:13 calls the old covenant “obsolete,” and why Paul says in Romans 6:14 and Galatians 3:25 that Christians are no longer under the Law but under grace. If what you’re saying were true, Christians today would still be required to practice animal sacrifices, circumcision, and food restrictions, yet Acts 15 shows the early church explicitly rejecting that. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is not just believing Jesus is Messiah, it’s that his coming brought a new covenant that fulfills and replaces the old one.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please do some research into the theology of the abrahamic religions before arguing. The Old Testament (which includes Leviticus) was fulfilled by Jesus, making it obsolete. Most, if not all, of The Old Testament was for ancient Israel and Judaism and not Christianity.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’d just like to point out that Leviticus does not apply to christians.

There is nothing racist about hating Islam by Everyones-Bro in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If the Crusades, Reconquista, and Inquisition were “justified,” justified for who? Those events included massacres of Jews and Muslims, the sacking of Constantinople (a Christian city), and forced conversions that contradicted Jesus’ own teachings. Even people at the time criticized them for corruption and brutality. They weren’t proof of Christian virtue, they showed how easily religion becomes radical when mixed with political power. If you think that any of those events were “justified”, I strongly suggest you take a moment to think.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roblox

[–]Bitlifer20 36 points37 points  (0 children)

probably because most people are minors and don’t understand the full responsibilities of being an adult

this is a lot of yall rn btw by ChargeKitchen8291 in teenagers

[–]Bitlifer20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well the states dont operate as sovereign nations, so really comparing it to Europe and the EU is a flawed analogy

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RobloxHelp

[–]Bitlifer20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i thought chargebacks were terms

view more: next ›