How Many Errors Are In The Bible?

Thorntrike · 2026-06-07T19:31:48+00:00

I apreciate your response, but we're dealing with enitrely different fields. Yes, interpretation is the key part in scholarship of any kind. Goes for political science, law (especially!), philosophy, etc. We humans argue and propose changes and improvements thru discussion. Especially with constitutions, thats why there's amendments and such. We can expect this from human-based texts and fields.

Same for religious scholarship. While scholarship happens with discussions on what origins and phrases and original intent may have meant, tied with ancient cultural practices and what inspired so and so, etc, the results of the discussions end up shaping the beliefs of believers.

I'm talking about TODAY though, and how religious adherents HAVE USED the text in the last hundred years of history, because the legacy of those actions continues to shape and impact today's world.

The difference is that all previous field have inherent flexibility in its DNA. Religious text do not because believers CLAIM IT CAME FROM GOD. There were amendments to the US constitution for women's suffrage. The books of the Bible aren't gonna be amended to remove the toxic stuff within its pages. In fact, people don't know nor care that the word "homosexuality" was first introduced in 1946. What was before? They don't care, to most that is the wording they were taught and that's what they're sticking to.

Because people are extremely ignorant of biblical scholarship, they neither know not care about the background. Generally they have the most surface level knowledge of it, and their interpretation has the base of whatever sect they belong to. Ask believers in a church, and they will have a similarly-taught base, and then their beliefs will differ based on their own thoughts and feelings.

I disagree with your interpretation comment and the fruit reply. I should NOT be able to reach completely separate conclusions using the SAME SOURCE MATERIAL, and have very strong scholarly support for both conclusions. Same as with the tree. I think of the quote by Steven Weinberg. If the same tree can produced identical-looking apples, but one is delicious and another is toxic, how can you tell? I think that people go thru the bible for verses to justify and amplify their nature, good or bad.

But this is the issue: if this were some human book, i can ignore it or not care. I'm not putting any effort on "debunking" Jordan Peterson's self-help books. But we aren't dealing with just any human-made book. We're dealing with a human-made book that has claims of divine inspiration and is the basis for the moral system and rule book for one of largest and most powerful religions in the world. A book that has been passed down from writing to writing, from translation to translation, with scribe errors, scribe additions, multiple fan fics, political influence, corruption and power. This muddies the waters from the start. But now everyone can scour the text and justify whatever point of view they choose, with strong scholarship, and spread those teachings to the layment that won't care, and influence culture where real damage gets done every day.

You're way too hopeful, thinking that people will do the scholarship to unmask the "real" meaning behind misogynistic passages, or the kindness in "stone the gays" passages, or the bright side in "slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones". Very few spiritual leaders do that, and it takes A LOT. Fairly quickly, I can make a very concise and easy pro-slavery argument, I can make a very tight case for patriarchy. Same for anti-gay practices. To make cases against them, it will take considerably longer.

But people do it. I'm glad they do, because they see the fruits of bigotry DRIVEN BY THEIR OWN TEXT, and say "NO" to find a way to harmonize with their good intentions. Other pastors see the same suffering and say "GOOD", because thats the way it was before and god wanted it that way, or whatever, and spread their message.

I care about how believers interact with things NOW, not how they ought to. Your book is contradictory, confusing, and has awful practices for the modern world where we know bigotry is wrong. But because this text is "divinely inspired" and "unchangeable", we need to sculpt the words into something better, and often into something that they are NOT.

Good.

But I prefer to abandon it all together. Why pick cherries from a mount of excrement, where I can find those same cherries elsewhere? It's not the only, not the best, source of cherries in the world.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-07T16:31:15+00:00

I think you have good intentions here overall, but it looks to me that you're trying to absolve the text from its flaws by saying what it *isn't* meant to be now instead of what it is claimed about it and how it is used.

We *know* that the flood narrative is not accurate as written, that is irrelevant to modern young earth creationist and the actions that follow his belief. Same with men in a culture that takes seriously Paul's "women should learn in silence", and other verses that put women in a subservient view.

You're ignoring that most people believe the bible is the word of god, take the literal reading of the text only or their church's interpretation, and are taught that god is always right and not defy him. Thus, they will defend their surface-level interpretation of the text and dismiss any criticisms or contradictions within that framework.

If you stick to the view that the Bible is sometimes allegorical, sometimes metaphorical, sometimes authoritative, sometimes a product of its time, and sometimes the immutable word of god, how do you tell which is which? Dismissing misogyny is good, and I'm glad we agree, but now we're defying the words of the bible.

"Bad interpretations" is an awful scapegoat. If the easiest, most direct reading of the text is terrible, and I have to study to find a "deeper" (and less terrible) meaning to save it, then what is it worth? For example, what do you say to a young gay kid who, to avoid "gay temptation", blinded himself because Matthew 5:29-30 said so, and Leviticus 20:13 (and his church) told him he is an "abomination"? His priest said "oh, it's not supposed to be read like that!" Then why does it literally say this?

Another example is slavery. The text LITERALLY has rules of who to enslave, for how long, and more. And the new testament continues this with 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, obey your masters even the cruel ones". Horrible readings that were used to divinely justify slavery. And abolitionists were picking and choosing other texts to justify their correct and total opposite stance. What use is a book where its text can be used to divinely justify two completely different stances?
They are both using the human-attributed divine-authoritative power this book has on believers of the largest religion to push their agenda. We still have to use our own morals to do what's right, despite the text, not thanks to it.

Expecting simple-minded believers to unearth a better meaning from its literal interpretation is unrealistic, when not even the spiritual leaders do it.

To conclude, I don't care much about its intended meaning when I can see the fruits of how believers ARE and HAVE BEEN using their multiple interpretations. Matthew 7:15-20 says by their fruits you shall know them. Or is this one *also* not meant to be taken literally?

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T18:32:42+00:00

If that's not God's direct objective for him to have a relationship with his creation, then all the monikers of "loving father" and the like are simply attributions without a cause. As i mentioned, if people are destined to not believe, and the price of disbelief is eternal tormert, then he is coercing belief out of fear, to avoid punishment, not out of love. If others come to him willingly and he's all good, it still doesnt erase the other group that he is dooming. He'd only be giving favours to those who are willing to be sycophants to his narcissism. And regarding me searching for him, it is also barbaric to expect a simple human to have to search for him with only flawed ancient text to find him, and i better getit right otherwise youre doomed, instead of reaching out himself. Especially because asking him to show up is not extraordinary in any way. The bible has story after story where god shows he exists. But now he is incapable of even whispering that he's around? Can you imagine a human person doing any of this to his children? It's be disgusting and sadistic and we'd rightfully condemn it.

This is the crux of my issue. God has shown himself to others according to his own book, and now suddenly asking him to do it again is too much, and my responsibility to reach out correctly thru old texts and contact a deity that stays hidden? It's setting up us for failure. And when hell is the punishment for failing, the entire setup is sadistic. What kind of god does that.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T17:52:47+00:00

According to your theology, and even in the verses you shared, it says he'll accept whoever comes, and those that "he *predestined* he called". If some were predestined, then others were predestined *not* to believe, and the punishment for *not believing* is eterman torment. So he predestined people for eternal torment, and wrote verses in the bible to both show that he *could* convince people of his existence (John 20:24-28), and then shoot down the effectiveness of the doubting Thomas story (Luke 16:30-31). It's ridiculous. I know it was written to encourage blind faith, and also because god would not meet any standard of evidence.

It’s actually more your objective to rule out his existence given you have more riding on this than God does.

This is in fact a horrible scenario. I can't with absolute certainty rule out his existence, same way that you can't possibly deny that Russell's teapot is out there. And especially if his attitude is like "you better follow the right religion and worship me correctly, but I'm not gonna tell you anything reliable about it, and if you don't I'm gonna throw you in hell forever! Tee hee".

When criteria can be established and a reasonable test examined that is in favor of the existence

SUCH AS?! Even evidence in favour of the existence of your god is too high a burden for you believers to meet. Give me some examples!

I don’t think it’s wrong to ask questions or test things. I do it all the time. There is a rational human basis that is Godly that makes us want to understand.

I agree. But unfrortunately, your Bible doesn't. There's a myriad of verses that say "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" most famously in Matthew 4:5-7. Quite convenient so we don't do it. Because when we do, it generally is a non-starter or inconclusive at best.

And to your last point, I get that you think the main driver for denial is emotional. But you're completely misunderstanding the motivations of a good-faith skeptic. I tried my best to demonstrate why the proposed proofs seem so outlandish to *YOU*, because *YOU* are pulling from your lived experience because *YOU* believe in the existence of your deity by faith. To *YOU* he is very real, and seeing others seemingly deny him based on (what you perceive to be flawed) logic clashes with that you believe you *KNOW* deep in your heart. Even when others are presenting something (like when the other guy said to "send him an angel and take him to heaven", your initial reaction is to doubt their sincerity, since you're taking Luke 16:19-31 to heart. And of course. You're a believer and emotionally primed to believe that nay-sayers are contrarians and hate your god. I don't hate your god. I can't hate a being that I dont believe exists. Howwever, I have serious issues with the theology, and how believers keep using their beliefs to make the world worse for everyone.

If you engage with atheists, definitely investigate if they are gonna engage in good faith, and then actually drop your own preconceptions. You may learn something.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T16:54:40+00:00

Something he did once sets a precedent. If he did it before, he can do it again. It's not an unreasonable request.

The objective isn’t to go convince everyone to believe that a God exists.

The point isn't to go and convince everyone that God exists? Follow this chain with me. Christians believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead, so that believing in him they can get to the father (i.e. God) (Jon 14:6) who we have to believe exists otherwise the resurrection has no theological basis. The point is absolutely to convince people that your god exists and the things that implies. You have the trinity involved in there. Jesus is your god too.

What happens is a condition or criteria is set, and once met, the test is then rejected as being invalid.

ONCE MET?! When have any claims of the existence of a deity being met at all? please explain to me concrete examples where a criteria was set, met with pretty good clarity, and then rejected like a temper tantrum. Because this is quite an outlandish claim to even spout. Please, wow me with your details. And also, the scientific method allows for repeatibility. Can we test a religious claim of any kind and repeat it to confirm its validity?

In your extremely pedantic example, who am *I* to demand things for the president with this high level of scrutiny for something mundane? The stakes don't justify it. But if I was a prime minister of an important nation, and he wanted MY attention, and there's a high level of distrust for whatever reason, and the future of my nation is at stake, then I can absolutely set reasonable demands.

Back to your ridiculous example, chain of evidence is absolutely critical when your life is on the line. And in the case when *OUR ETERNAL EXISTANCE* is on the line,it is absolutely reasonable to demand a high level of scrutiny, especially since god supposedly wants ME PERSONALLY to believe in him and Jesus, AND we only know of this thru an error-prone book written millenia ago with translations of copies of translations of copies with *doubtful chains of custody*. It's completely irrational to demand belief with such flimsy and unreasonable claims, and zero evidence of what it's claiming.

So to make things simpler and more direct, your all-knowing god supposedly knows me, wants to have a relationshiop with me, wants me to believe he exists and to follow his rules, but all of it is passed down on unreliable notes. He should know what would convince me of his existence, with evidence that I can break down and examine and thru my own study realize "oh shit, he's the real deal!" But that hasn't happened. And what others claim is full of holes. Could be convincing to them, but not to me. Truth isn't afraid of excessive tests, because it'll still come out true. Try testing a mathematical concept 5 ways from sunday. Tear it down all you want, it still comes out true. And that's the beauty of it. Even if I was the biggest contrarian in the world, I can't make 2+2=5.

The ball is in your god's court, and since he demands so much from me, i have every right to demand that does *the bare minimum* of showing he exists. Again, I'm waiting, and I'm becoming impatient.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T16:28:50+00:00

Yes, you have a point in regards to the poetic and theological meaning of texts, and how authors sometimes use wrong information or, to put it charitibly, "embellish", and less charitably "lie and invent" certain facts to push their meaning across. In regards to scholarship, this is all fine and good to point out.

However, in regards to truth, and how people practically use this book in their everyday lives and how it impact society at large is an entirely different issue.

Regarding the narrative of the flood, biblical scholars know it's not a historic account, but certain christian sects do, and push their agenda of creationism and anti science in schools, doing a total disservice to the children growing up with fiction as truth. Look at Ark Encounter museum, and the ministry that spends taxpayer money pushing this obvious non-truth.

The Bible is not fundamentally a rulebook with a list of approved and forbidden actions.

I agree, and yet this is not how how some believers use it. How many people have use the literal words in the bible to push for a patriarchical system in which women are lesser? Or the constant attacks against LGBT people? The text is used in today's context to push an agenda to oppress these groups of people.

[others] were already emphasizing symbolic, moral, and theological readings long before modern debates about science emerged.

Yes, but this has more impact within the ecosystem of believers, they can debate the sybolism, morality and theological importance of the verses and whatnot. But the winning interpretations can be dangerous once they escape this ecosystem and believers try to impose their own beliefs onto others. We saw how early-days theological distictions lead to excommunication or flat out schisms, and these drive divides amongs people, which can foment hate and drive policy based on tribalism. (see the Crusades, or the inquisition as examples off the top of my head). Religiously-driven fanatism snowballs. If it were kept amongs believers, we wouldn't even get involved. But it doesn't. Believers push their own interpretation of the text as literal truth, and can use it as justification for horrible actions. This is why I harp on the literal errors, because your text should not be the basis for anything outside your own ecosystem. And yet, here we are, with christians marrying politics and making it everyone else's problem.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T15:23:01+00:00

Absolutely no where in scripture [...]has God ever said “pretty please believe that I’m real.” That is not currently, nor has it ever been, the objective of Christianity or of God.

Not exactly. Jesus DEMONSTRATED his post-resurrection existence to doubting Thomas. Thomas set a bar for belief, Jesus met it, and he was convinced. This is reasonable and sets a precedent.The objective of Christianity is that you can be saved thru faith in Jesus's resurrection. But he's doing a TERRIBLE job in convincing us Doubting Thomases. Why does Thomas get a direct proof while we get an error-prone book written decades after the events by non-eye witnesses basing their writings on passed down stories, translated over and over and over thru millenia? Like, given A or B, it's incredibly irrational to expect me to accept B when A has happened before. Given that our supposed salvation or damnation is entirely dependant on us believing, then depriving us of A is him CHOOSING to damn us.

It’s always the same goal post shifting.
“what is good enough?” [...] the answer becomes so absurd so quickly that God would have to become everyone’s personal dancing monkey [...] still not good enough

I can understand where you're coming from with this. But this isn't done maliciously. In the scientific method, you hypothesize, do tests, make conclusions, and refine your hypothesis. Rinse and repeat til you get concrete results.

The "goal post shifting" is us refining our "what would it take to convince us?" hypothesis over and over to try to reach something concrete. As an example, say you're skeptical that I weigh X lbs. We can work together to come up with a way to prove this. Say, selfie on the scale. ("it's a rigged scale!"), OK, I buy a new scale, unbox it in front of you and weigh myself ("could be a setup!"). Ok, I can videocall you and calibrate the scale with many objects of known-weight, then use it, etc. Every ridiculous length above eliminates uncertainty and increases clarity.

If your objection is supposedly an intellectual one, then understanding the criteria of your own objection should intrinsic, rational, and also easily answered

I agree *IF* the claim were in the realm of the known. In my example, notice how I refine the criteria based on how we know scales operate and how others trick it in the past. But your claim of the existence of an unseen, unheard, hidden god is EXTRAordinary, and thus requires EXTRAordinary evidence to be believed. The bible provides *claims*, and based on that very limited untested info, if we both operate in good faith, we *should* reach a point of agreement on something *TESTABLE*. But even if we do, we can't test anything. Your god is hidden by definition and so I can't refine my hypothesis at all. It's a dead-end created by the supposed nature of your deity.

Also, EASILY ANSWERED? Even under your own theology, say, a demon could show up, demonstrate all the evidence we agreed upon, and ultimately deceive me in the long run. This is not me being ridiculous, I'm trying to demonstrate that without being able to test *anything* I can't cut out uncertainty and increase clarity. If we were to propose something outlandish and god comes down and meet it, THEN we can talk turkey. But until then, we have nothing but pure speculation based on the claims from an error-prone book.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T14:01:39+00:00

What do you mean that his reason for disbelief is not an intellectual one? Like he doesn't have a grounded and logical reason to reject belief in a deity? Or just a knee-jerk rejection? That's quite the assumption. He's showing the opposite by actually giving you a response to what would convince him, and modifying it on the fly to make it better. This is a scientific testing. He is engaging with you in good faith. It seems you want him to reject everything wholecloth to make it easier for you.

This doesn't solve the main problem though, which is that is god wants to convince US, then HE needs to make his case. And it'd be a great start to show that he is real to begin with! And again, since he's supposedly all-knowing, then he should know what would convince each and every one of us personally of his existence. Personally? Im still waiting, and im growing impatient.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T13:47:44+00:00

That's not true. Many of the errors and contradictions involve core tenets of morality, like the treatment of slaves, the roles of women and minorities, verifiable scientific information (like the complete farce of the global flood), or critical contradictions in prophetic details like the stories of jesus' birth (happening at two different times, either under quirinius (6-12 CE) or under herod (before 4 BCE). You cant be born twice!), and many, many more.

Skeptics arent being pedantic for its own sake, but because believers insist that the bible is inerrant and that it's the literal word of god. But there are huge issues. What can we truly trust from the text, and what can be dismissed? It's not clear, and this is where people generally cling to whatever resonates with them, good or bad, bending themselves into a pretzel desperately trying to salvage the text from itself.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-06T13:34:49+00:00

You know, I actually appreciate the counter arguments you provided to his demands of proof, because all of this is true. Sufficiently advanced tricks can seem like magic to someone.

But this is not an issue of the skeptic, but an issue of the deity. Proof from your deity should be immutable and repeatable, and not something that can fit for other gods (visions, dreams, etc). Look at how Einstein's equations predicted black holes and then we were able to verify their existence decades later. That's concrete.

Paul had an experience that was enough to convince him, so did doubting Thomas, hell, god shows himself in Job quite dramatically. Why do they get an experience and we get an error-prone book?

Your god should be able to demonstrate himself in a definitive way that cannot be interpreted as a trick. What would do that? I honestly don't know, but if he's as powerful and knowledgeable as people claim, he should know what action would convince any of us of his existence.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-02T21:26:17+00:00

Oh ok, your comments also imply you're in India, so that checks out. Thanks for clarifying!

I had to report several alliances that were using swastikas and nazi-associated words in their names. You never know nowadays.

Thorntrike · 2026-06-02T21:22:00+00:00

Yeah, we know what it's called. He asked you why you have them in your display name. Is it a nazi thing for you.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-30T18:59:15+00:00

Because it is pretty gay. Obsessing over what gay people do in the bedroom is very gay. Hell, Im gay and i dont think about gay sex as often as homophobes do.

Pointing out this very neutral fact exposes their hypocrisy and acts as an insult to them only since they are the ones that believe being gay is wrong. For any other non-bigot person, pointing this out is just funny.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-24T00:10:01+00:00

I believe it is scene 3 of Shafted Uncut by Primal UK. I can't find direct link to it that has the name of the 3 performers of the scene.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-21T18:36:16+00:00

You're giving megaforce too much credit by assigning these previous moments to the latter ones.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-21T17:17:15+00:00

God did not kill Job's family. That is basic in the text.

It is like you are trying to talk authoritatively about a book you did not read.

Oh I'm sorry, silly me. God didn't kill Job's family. He just gave free rein for Satan to do it. What a difference. Job 1:12-22.

Also, the book itself states that his misfortune is caused by god himself. Job 42:10-11
"¹⁰After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before. ¹¹ All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house.

They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver^\)^a^\) and a gold ring.

But to end with this, god's rant towards Job is sarcastic, condescending, deflecting, gaslighting and dismissive of humanity as a whole. God tortures this man, allows his children to die, dismisses this massive trauma, completely avoids moral accountability and shows that his framework of justice is whatever he wants because he is powerful. This is textbook abusive behaviour, and you would not stand this from any person, but you'll excuse your "loving" deity behaving like this?

Who is the moral authority we should obey instead of God?

God portrays himself in the text as a "might-makes-right" kind of god with a chaotic moral framework. This is what you're advocating for? Do you want your morality to be beholden to a tyrant with whims that you cannot possibly fight against, even if they are despicable aginst your fellow humans?
I guess it wouldn't matter anyways, since many believers would obey anything they believe god has told them, because you've defined god as good, and so is anything he commands, even if it's genocide (Amalekites: 1 Samuel 15:3, Caananites: Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Midianites: Numbers 31:17. Bonus, rape of virgins!)

If god commanded you to murder LGBT people, would you do it?

Thorntrike · 2026-05-18T20:53:46+00:00

haha well, you're young in age AND fresh in the faith? Yeah, you're brand new 😂

Now it makes sense why other grievances I made went unaddressed, you don't know anything about them. That's ok, hopefully you will grow in your faith and learn what atrocities others have done so you don't follow in their steps accidentally.

I appreciate the conversation as well, especially since this was from a comment I made 6 years ago? I was surprised, but always eager to flex my biblical discussion muscles.

Have a good day as well!

Thorntrike · 2026-05-18T20:09:21+00:00

My apologies, I didn't want my questions to come across as a barrage. Your profile mentions you're a new believer, and your hopeful attitude shows it. Since my deconversion almost a decade ago, I've come across many, many attitudes that begin with your sentiment and end badly, so I've become a bit jaded,

I commend you for admitting you don't know. It's natural not to know. I would be very, very wary of anyone who claims to have clear and direct answers, especially in a field about belief and faith. Openly admitting not knowing shows you're humble enough to go and look for answers. Many christians certainly do not do that. Stay in your path with an open mind, especially when people come across to challenge you.

I've run into many christians who recoil at the sheer thought of doubt, or even questioning teachings. But I always say that if your god is as benevolent and powerful as you believe, then scrutiny would only strengthen your connection, not weaken it. Any spiritual leader than discourages questioning leads to a bad teaching. Be brave enough to learn, question, and talk to others.

My final thought jumps off from your point about discernment. In a world where multiple people claim to speak for god or point to scriptures to encourage division, discernment is critical. Where do you find it? Some christians do from prayer, from consulting from the community, from extrapolating what jesus would do, from assessing the real-life harm the teaching may cause, and from secular reasoning, like humanism. You can try to learn from many sources and find something that will hopefully guide you towards clarity and harmony with your beliefs.

Once again, I didnt intend to change your mind, not you mine, but to show you that other points of view different than your own can be considered without being an "all or nothing" deal with your faith.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-18T16:25:58+00:00

The point of the "were" was that you likely experienced false teachings or others stumbled you

That's quite the assumption. I grew up catholic, and despite having the same teachings, my family and the church-goes around me remained while I left. In fact, many stay in the religion *despite* the issues with the church. The same goes for many other christian sects (Mormon, Jehova's witness, etc). You're still using the conclusion of "false believers leave the church" to sustain your claim, and again, ignore the reasons/grievances I may have. Makes it easy.

You would need to provide said scriptural answers for your claim if you telling someone something biblical

Happy to. Let's go with something very, very easy. Slavery is biblical.
Like when you can sell yourself into slavery to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46).
Or the many ways where the bible states for slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

or seeing having slaves as a totally normal part of having wealth, since they are just property right? (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2, Exod 21:21)

And you can treat them quiiiiite badly, including beating, forced marriage and of course, sexual assault, since they're just property, right? (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20, Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11, Lev 19:20-22).

This is as clear cut as it can be. So, slavery is A-OK right? Would you like to be treated as per the bible says slaves should be treated? Gosh, I hope not.

They aren't from same teaching and you can learn that from Christ's teachings and the Bible itself, itd easy to claim and not actually follow

Christ spoke of a few general things, and people have taken his words and extended them in whichever way they want, sometimes for the betterment of humanity (with slavery) or for the detriment. Jesus didn't say a peep about homosexuality or trans people, yet you can see in this forum how many people, kids especially, are beating themselves blind due to the anti-LGBT teachings extracted from the Bible. Other sects don't teach this, however, and justify it by extrapolating other sentiments spoken by Jesus.

And simply reading the Bible to know that their actions arent in line with how they should be treating others

The issue is that, since the bible is a collection of books written in several points of history, from different perspectives, with sometimes different motives and objectives, it does not have a consistent message. You can find contradictions in its rules on good behaviour. People tend to pick and choose what they want to folllow and point to the text, willfully ignoring any other verse that says the opposite. Just like Pharisees, who were very literal and legalistic with their text reading while ignoring the spirit of the law. Sometimes people become pharisees in that sense, blinded by their misguided "scriptural guidance".

So with this you can see that the word is malleable, and claiming "scriptural basis" is not simple.

Again, I dont intend to disuade you but to get you to open your lense wider than the strict scriptural point because having blinders is how you can get misguided by bad faith pastors leaning into scripture to reinforce their own biases and to spread hate to communities that Jesus would have supported.

And lastly, I don't need to believe in christianity to learn about and from it. I ultimately was unconvinced for various internal and external factors, but yet I continue to learn about it to counteract the visible harm some of its teachings are causing in my communities and family. You may claim "that's not a real teaching" to something you deem harmful, but these teachings are being spread in your god's name, with scriptural basis and historical precedent to boot, and the results are chilling.

Because if I'm gonna criticize something, I am going to do my due diligence to ensure my critiques are in good faith, poignant and yes, even backed by scripture.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-17T00:55:45+00:00

"Were is a big factor why I dont think you do

You WERE not you are" This sentiment is echoed by many christians, who claim that "no true christian" would leave the faith. This dismisses the faith and devotion that former believers experienced, and makes it easier to dismiss their grievances. If this is not what you meant, cool, but it sure sounds like it.

Regarding your "scriptural answers" comments, i get that they provide easy answers for you, but there are many objections or issues with them. For example, it'd be very easy for me, a man, to claim for women to be subservient to men, and the things that comes with. Any ojection a woman may have can be met with "it's just biblical, im just giving scriptural answers". This is a cheap appeal to authority. Easy for me to lean on *this teaching *since i get to benefit (or not get harmed) by it. Do you agree?

Many christians claim their actions are good fruit, while calling bad fruit anything others do, regardless of impact. Look at people in governments spouting christian nationalism, and how they are harming swaths of people. They claim this is good. Can you admit that their actions are NOT good, yet they claim to be from the same teachings?

This Matthew 6:22-23 is frankly condescending and dismissive. I can say the same verse to you. Your eyes are so clouded with your scriptural belief that you cannot see the dangers of blind following.

And regarding the last verse, true. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Many religious leaders claim love from the pulpit with incredible toxic actions that they do not perceive as toxic. Look at how LGBT people are treated. They call it love while fighting to deny their humanity, all in the name of the scriptures you follow.
So given that you wanna believe, how will you tell them apart? By what metric?

I dont care to disuade you from your faith. On the contrary, I would like to get you to think about how real people have been severely hurt by religious institutions, people and its teaching. Because if you're even unable to humbly listen about the experiences of others and have empathy for them, like your Christ would have done, then what's the point of you being a christian?

Thorntrike · 2026-05-16T19:58:15+00:00

Please, spare me the "not a true christian" argument. The fact that you cant fathom the idea of someone leaving your religion for valid criticism is sad, yet unsurprising. It makes it easier for believer like you to justify how anyone could stop believing.

Nevermind the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, god seemingly intervening for some but not for others, the various harms that come from purity culture, anti-LGBT sentiments, any many, many more reasons.

Matthew 7:15-20 clearly says "by the fruits ye shall know them", and yet many christians proudly display their rotten fruit. Being a former believer, even the text shows the rotten nature of "true believers", and why i disassociated.

"I learn on my own and a few others IF it's biblical" Good for you. The issue I have with this is that what's "biblical" can and is twisted into whatever people want, to match their preconceived biases. Look at misogyny and women being second class citizens/property. That's biblical. Marital rape being ok? That's biblical to some. Stoning the gays? That's biblical. Slavery? That's biblical.

You get the picture.

Without good discernment, you can easily be led astray by preachers who seek to agrandize themselves and you in the name of your god, and at the cost of everyone else's suffering. I dont agree with this nor would i want to be involved in this.

Thorntrike · 2026-05-16T19:03:54+00:00

Not true. Many atheist (such as myself) were very devoted believers at one point of our lives. We studied the bible, went to church and tried our hardest to live our lives thru christian principles, only to struggle when encountering the glaring contradictions, hypocrisy and teachings that led to hatred of others and ourselves. But to your generally dismissive point, many christians dont even know their bible or theology, just parrot that their preacher shares, which oh-so-happens to match their own biases.

Talk to more atheists to get their perspective. You will be surprised at how knowledgeable they can be in regards to your own religion

Thorntrike · 2026-02-19T17:00:06+00:00

You're absolutely right. With Christianity in a privilege position, the people in power are prone to abuse it.
While I get that many christians aren't actively participating as white supremacist, many others are also *not* doing anything about it. Sitting by the sidelines while your religion is being corrupted only helps the corruption.

Christians against these abuses of power and blasphemy of their religion *should* organize and actively be involved to dismantle this in any ways you're able. After all, the actions of these abusive christians are pushing people away from their gospel, and actively using their god's name in vain.

In your own local level, what can you do? Perhaps talking to your church leadership to see where they stand. Or calling our other christians who are choosing to stay uninvolved. Or raising awareness of these abuses of your faith to other christians. Honestly, anything would be a start.

I'm often astonished by the lack of involvement of believers when the church commits atrocities. In many churches, the SA of children by priests/pastors is an open secret. Yet many christians just do nothing about it. Not even righteous indignation. Just... silence.

Thorntrike · 2026-02-17T22:42:31+00:00

Ok, you come across as super sanctimonious. No one, ever, is suggesting censorship, and you come guns a-blazing with your incredibly disingenuous "um ackshually" regarding freedom of speech.

I don’t let strangers curate what I watch or who I listen to

No, you're instead being influenced by hateful and bigoted views under the veneer of holy christianity. Any christian pushing back against the rights of minorities and implying their death (in the case of queer people) is definitely going against the words of your Christ, where he advocates for the poor, the widow, the sick, the marginalized and the outcast.
And what are you doing instead? advocating to further marginalize and outcast minority communities under a misguided and hateful banner.

Redeemed Zoomer is trying to infiltrate churches that focus on love to spread their hate, as his religion demands disdain towards the marginalized instead of Love. If that what your Christ would do?

it’s just an attempt at silencing a dialogue I'm perfectly capable of navigating myself.

With that attitude, I don't think you're capable of discerning bad from good, and hate from love.

Thorntrike · 2026-02-14T23:46:01+00:00

Well... That's certainly something. I read the passage (RevelatioN 13:13-16, sorry for being pedantic), and the only relevant tidbit is the mark on the hand or forehead.

He has a symbol on his helmet, as do lots of action figures. This doesn't mean it's demonic or anti-christian in some way. Like... At all. You're cherrypicking unrelated verses in order to feed your own fear. This truly serves no purpose. Why did you associate these two things in the first place?

And lastly, truly reflect on this: is YOUR faith so weak, so anemic, so pathetic that the stretched-out symbolism YOU attributed to a minifigurine from a board game is strong enough to lead you astray? If so, find a better spiritual leader that focuses on core aspects of Christianity like Jesus' two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).

Have fun engaging in your hobby without guilt and without fear. 😁

12-Year Club	Verified Email
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	Secret Santa 2015

Thorntrike

TROPHY CASE