Words have meanings. What is it you think I’m “soapboxing” here? By that logic, you could just dismiss literally anything online. "You just want a soapbox, so I’m not gonna answer your EXTREMELY VALID QUESTIONS THAT YOU GAVE AS AN ANSWER TO A POST ON A FORUM.

Alright, “buddy”, be a hypocrite. I do care for the world, because hypocrites make the world suffer, but I don’t care about you personally. I just care that your personal ego and fears are in the way of a good world we could have.

You’re defending a view… without being able to defend it in any way or without answering any of the questions put to you. The topic of this thread is “is being Christian compatible with being trans”, but you refuse to talk about it.

No, I never said I was in a debate. Did I?

argumentum

You use words you don’t understand? (That’s a rhetorical question, I can see you do.)

“Dogma”, “sacrament”? It’s all Greek to me…

Name one “Christian value” which you can and should take from Christianity. And that is specific to it. Not like “Christianity teaches us that you shouldn’t kill everyone you see on sight” like the golden rule I mentioned earlier.

No.

A Christian value.

Go ahead.

I’ll wait.

No, you just keep defending this bullshit and then you wonder why we have to go through wars and shit.

Stand up and call monotheism the cancer it is. There’s nothing inherently good in it. Nothing. But there is a lot of inherently bad things, like dogma, and straight up anti-LGBT values.

Alright, sure, "the topic of this thread, which you’re defending, is", does that make you feel better, and can you now you start answering, or is just that you’re arguing in such bad faith you have zero intention of answering ANYTHING?

“Soapbox”.

Again, I’m not an atheist, buddy. I’ve simply asked very simple questions, like “please elaborate on what you think ‘Christian values’ means” which you keep avoiding, because you can’t define it. Because it’s all hypocrisy and not a genuinely held belief. Which just proves what utter bullshit it is.

Monotheism is cancer, yet you keep defending it.

edit oh and why would I give two fucks about who you block?

Deflecting again? Wow. So surprised. You can’t answer anything or define anything.

Yet you imagine you’re in a “debate”? Thanks for the laughs.

What I’ve been telling you is that you’re wrong.

Name one “Christian value” which you can and should take from Christianity. And that is specific to it. Not like “Christianity teaches us that you shouldn’t kill everyone you see on sight” like the golden rule I mentioned earlier.

No.

A Christian value.

Go ahead.

I’ll wait.

No, you just keep defending this bullshit and then you wonder why we have to go through wars and shit.

Stand up and call monotheism the cancer it is. There’s nothing inherently good in it. Nothing. But there is a lot of inherently bad things, like dogma, and straight up anti-LGBT values.

a failure of power, it’s a failure of language.

And what is scripture made out of again? God … or language?

You’re really gonna make me go through all the tedious examples of how illogical monotheism is? No thanks.

Yes I have read the Bible

The whole Bible, not just bits which you found through googling it? The actual, whole book, from cover to cover?

I was Baptised in my early 20s

You read the whole Bible before deciding everything in it is true and thats definitely possible, despite there being sentences like “God can create triangles with angles of ≠ 3?”

Alright, well, you do you m8.

Rapes happen in hospitals and schools - does that mean proponents of healthcare and education are defending

If you show me a healthcare system that has as much systemic rape in it that Catholicism does, I’ll show you a healthcare system which I criticise and advocate to reform.

If you had a criminal court case, and you only had one witness, it would be less reliable than one with two witnesses.

I’m sorry but I’m not smoking crack and can’t keep up with you.

If you had one witness with red paint on their face, saying “a guy threw red paint on my face”, and then you went on to lool for the guy mentioned, and found him, with an empty bucket of red paint and red paint all over his hands, it would be more believable than having a two guys — one with blue paint on him and one with yellow paint on him — saying “a guy threw red paint on us”, especially when you then don’t find any red paint anywhere, and even the local stores say they don’t even recall ever seeing any.

I don’t care for your personal history, it had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, which is the topic of the thread.

Monotheism is bad and religious people, monotheists especially, are usually dragged into progressive values despite their resistance to them.

It’s beyond insane how much of the world you’re having to ignore just to keep identifying as a Christian despite not believing in single tenet of the religion.

So I remind you of the argument I said before; it genuinely wouldn’t make any rhetorical difference what religion you changed into this conversation for Christianity. You ask whether Christianity is compatible with being trans, but then you refuse to say what notion of being Christian is.

So I’m to just take it that you just like to think your Christian, despite deriving all your personal moral from the world, like people do?

You can’t name what these “Christian values” are that you’re asking about. Yet you insist that you have them.

Wtf?

I need to verify them actually being contradictions to answer your comment

That would require actually reading the Bible. Have you? I have. As I told the other person, I’ve had a Christian confirmation when I was 15.

don’t see how other self professed monotheists raping little boys disproves monotheism

Disproves? As in, we’re going to argue whether a single God actually exists? Don’t be childish.

My proof is that the the Bible isn’t the word of God is the Bible itself.

Eventually God can’t make a triangle which doesn’t have three angles. Because then it wouldn’t be a triangle, see? You can go ahead and start looking into those contradictions, although I assume that if you actually do, that will be the most Bible you’ve ever actually read.

would love nothing more than to see these people drowned with a millstone… Although that’s probably too kind to them.

Yet you defend the system which makes it possible in the first place, became the act of rape is so disconnected from you supporting Christianity that you think it’s morally alright to still “believe” despite the massive and SYSTEMIC raping of children the Catholic Church did.

It doesn’t matter what hour Jesus died in. It matters that there’s contravening accounts. If there’s a contradiction, both obviously can not be correct and thus the Bible can not be the infallible word of God, despite claiming so.

Sent “you”?

No, I posted one, and no I’m not saying that’s the reason.

You’re saying that the Bible being literally filled with contradictions doesn’t matter, and you base that on there being too many contradictions to answer in a Lemmy comment.

If you were arguing in good faith, you could arbitrarily pick some and show why they’re not actually contradictions. But you can’t. You can’t do it to a single one, let alone all of them.

And despite that, despite whatever, there is NOTHING that you would accept as proof of Christianity and monotheism being bad.

Literally nothing.

It doesn’t matter that historically monotheism is obviously violent and crazy, it doesn’t matter that the Catholic Church has been systematically raping little boys for God knows how long, NONE OF IT MATTERS TO YOU.

You’re literally arguing in bad faith. Yet you pretend as if naming a fallacy makes you right. Then you get even more ashamed when I point out how nerdy and wrong it is to larp a philosopher by answering with a pretentious latin form of a fallacy. I point it out with a pretentious Latin form for the fallacy you used. Then you still refuse to actually produce any rhetoric.

Like I said, there is NOTHING that would change your mind in this. The ultimate bad faith.

I added this comment as an edit to the earlier reply but it was so much later O thought yo write this as a specific comment as well. Edit dammit, sorry I forgot to add the part I meant to write about how being trans and Christian on a practical level is completely different and mostly up to the people in any given local religious community. ideologically it doesn’t fit but if you’re trans and are asking whether other Christians can accept you? Yes, ofc they can. Christians are great at hypocrisy.

Was this a competition? I wasn’t aware. Congrats, you won!

No, it’s not a competition, but you implied that because you identify as a Christian and I no longer do, that you’re in some sort of position of authority over it. (“If that’s your only idea of Christianity” you said after tossing out some wild strawman I had nothing to do with.)

• Explain what is “good” about gay luxury communism

Oh you’re making demands of my belief system, when this thread is about whether Christianity is compatible with being trans? No Christianity, a dogmatic religion with Old Testament in its scripture is not compatible with being trans on an ideological level.

One is a hateful ideology that hates anything different. And one is just existing as a trans person. There’s no “trans ideology” that is being tested against it, but you’re asking as if there were, since the ideology that Christianity has to fight is progressiveness; “being woke”, as the kids say. The very thing that Star Trek enshrines.

What’s atheists have to do with this? I’m not an atheist, as I’ve told you.

And no, I won’t be hopping to your demands. You’ve answered none of my questions or explained your views even when I asked nicely. You simply ignore facts about Christianity, literally, and say “well that’s no longer the case” “you don’t actually have to believe in this sort of thing”.

You made a point about a gay man going to an imam. Don’t you think that with how large Muslim society is globally that there’s literally millions of LGTBQ+ youths who are battling against their even more dogmatic religion? Don’t you think it’d be kind of the same thing for a man to be gay and still defend Islam, as if you are (I’m not assuming anything and hopefully haven’t at any point) trans and defend Christianity?

Why is it different to be a gay man and defend Islam, than being trans and defending Christianity?

What “status” are you talking about? You do know why the nowadays politically incorrect phrase “dark ages” existed, right? Europe had the dark ages while Asia was bloomimg. First universities were Islamic.

Hell, Christianity got rid of Europe’s smartest. And forced it’s dogma down everyone’s throats for a few thousand years. Christianity came out on top because it was the least accepting and most punishing.

The amount of progressive sociological concepts that Christianity put down in just ancient Norse religion is massive. Greece too.

Do you think a gay man would have had trouble living 2500 years ago in Greece? No. Absolutely none. What about after Christianity took over…?

Edit dammit, sorry I forgot to add the part I meant to write about how being trans and Christian on a practical level is completely different and mostly up to the people in any given local religious community. ideologically it doesn’t fit but if you’re trans and are asking whether other Christians can accept you? Yes, ofc they can. Christians are great at hypocrisy.

So you’re arguing that Christianity has evolved out of it’s core tenets?

I’m sorry, but monotheism is dogmatic. Another word that’s sure to ring a bell, but you seem to have missed the meaning of it.

Christianity is a dogmatic religion. Google the sentence if it doesn’t make sense otherwise. Or more specifically, it contain dogma.

Excellent movie btw, for Christians or non-Christians, all alike. Full movie on YouTube completely for free and good quality https://youtu.be/XlIORIds1xc

As an exercise, imagine you are a gay man and you went to talk about it with a priest. Now imagine the same gay man going to talk about it with an Imam. How do you think these conversations would go?

Both would work quite well in Finland.

In Iran or the US, theocracies, they wouldn’t work either.

You know that monotheism is exclusive and hates differences. Yet you’re too fucking scared to call them out on what they are, because the Mary-Sues and Josephs at your local bible-camp wouldn’t like it.

Monotheism is absolute cancer which hates everything different.

Anyone who’s read basics of history and theology knows that

Back in polytheistic societies like Norway and Greece etc, people were far more progressive than comparative monotheist societies.

Yet you defending Christianity. It’s ridiculous. You don’t know anything and you don’t follow any tenets. So you don’t actually believe in the 10 commandments. Who the fuck does?

Yet you’re too scared to call it the BS it is. You can still enjoy community without claiming to be a Christian. Perhaps in America you can’t…?

Oh you’re at the infantile “I’m gonna name a fallacy as an argument” stage of your development. Congrats on turning 16.

Unfortunately, what you’re doing is called argumentum ad logicam.

More commonly known as the fallacy fallacy

If this is your only idea of “being Christian”, then I’m certainly not it.

Dude I’ve literally shown you how much more I know and understand about Christianity than you do. You know that you didn’t know what a confirmation is, much less being able to name ALL the sacrament. Hell, you probably even wouldn’t be able to define the word without googling.

I can list all the sacrament, because I’ve studied the Bible and Christianity, as a former Christian who was brought up in Christianity.

But you don’t even admit to your ignorance about your own faith, when said ignorance is literally the point of this conversation.

Because of the community that comes with it.

Yeah, just like I said, hypocritical believers who are just too scared to admit the ONLY REASON they’re identifying as Christians is LITERALLY that others wouldn’t accept them not identifying as a Christian.

That’s exactly my point.

However in more secular countries, you can. You don’t need to be a part of the church to engage in social activities and people don’t socially hang you out to dry if you acknowledge what ridiculous contradictory bullshit the Bible is.

Because other religions seems to treat this world as a mere passage way, and Judeo-Christian cultures are also concerned about working to leave this place better than what was found.

WRONG. Propaganda, bullshit and utterly fucking wrong.

Monotheism is a destructive and hateful. It’s indoctrination, and make people worse than they would be without monotheism. Without monotheism, we would already have our gay luxury space communism.

I know more about Christianity than you do, you’re just scared to accept Criticism_of_monotheism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism

As if you could.

You’ve not even read the whole thing, I would bet.

Much less being able to suss out literally hundreds of contradictions. So what you’re saying is “it doesn’t matter how ridiculous and contradictory Christianity is, I would never accept that being the case, no matter the evidence. I’ve made up my mind and there’s no changing it. It’s called having faith.”

And I’m saying that arguing over the validity of “claims to be Christian” is irrelevant to anyone but fundamentalists.

This is what I meant with the part about how you could change your religion in the conversation to be literally whatever and the conversation would still be exactly the same. So clearly you don’t even know the tenets or sacraments or anything about Christianity, so why would you identify as one?

Social pressure from which side? Taking this thread as a sample, it seems that the only ones that care about “claims of being Christian” are the extremists.

We don’t know each other in any social context. Me using logic here is not “social pressure”. Your grandma being pissed at you if you had to point to her what a whackadoodle you need to be to profess belief in the Bible is social pressure.

Did I mock my grandma for her religion or criticise Christianity to her? Of course fucking not, I loved her. But this is a literal thread asking about religion, and I’m pointing out the hypocrisy, which I think isn’t wrong for this thread.

I’m asking pretty simple questions and not saying what people should do or believe in.

that everything must be taken literally

And if you say you have a belief system, but then that belief system doesn’t have any tenets, any scripture, and the scripture it has means nothing or that you actually haven’t even read the scripture that you claim to believe in “non-literally”, you don’t actually have a belief system.

To be accepted into the Church, you need to accept Jesus and renounce your sins. No one was asked to read the whole Bible and accept it as some Terms and Conditions.

Jesus, you really don’t know jack shit of the religion you claim to believe in. Yes, there very much is a "read thr while Bible and confirm your Faith.

It’s literally called a confirmation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation

Now the practice in the modern world isn’t as common, because it’s easier to just default to “you accepted the T&C with your Baptism”, but it is still a literal SACRAMENT in the religion. (I don’t believe you could list other sacraments, or even the meaning of the word.)

I have had a confirmation. You literally spend a week reading the Bible, after which you get confirmed. No, you can’t fail, it’s not a test, but it does show you how ridiculous the Bible is and it’s just a fun thing for teenagers to do and you get loads of money as presents from family members.

You don’t seem to know anything about Christianity, you don’t seem to have any rules set by it, you don’t seem to be able to say you believe in any specific bit in it, yet you claim that you definitely are.

And I’m just asking WHY?

You could just as well claim you’re some other religion, like Buddhism, and then just pretend your beliefs come from that. As of now in this conversation, changing your religion wouldn’t change the conversation a single bit. That’s how little Christianity matters to you, but you since there’s social pressure, you won’t accept any of this.

Who cares.

I’m pointing out that any definition includes believing in the Bible, as it’s a core tenet in Christianity.

I’m not here to tell you what to believe. I’m just saying my personal belief is that anyone claiming to be Christian (other monotheist) while not even having read the scripture is a hypocrite who’s only doing it out of social pressure.

More ignoring and crying how “you’re not supposed to take it seriously, but actually we tell everyone that taking it seriously is the 1. tenet of Christianity and that we do take it seriously, but NONE OF US EVEN ACTUALLY READ IT LOL”

Read the fucking thing and if you’re not a coward, you’ll stop calling yourself a Christian.

No pls don’t attempt to defend it before you actually fucking read the Bible.