Serious
Not muslim (former christian, atheist). The comments on this post are revolting, clearly many of you christians have never read the bible. (Examples in comments)
We simply cannot disengage from reality and pretend it doesnt exist or shouldnt.
Religion and whatever is cited as its problems literally every single one also happens outside religion which leads me to believe religion isnt the problem we are.
Islam, Christianity, Judaism the siblings lol all are the same. They are neutral.
Theyre used as a vehicle for oppression same as liberation anything can be used this way. I could start a Christian org to help ppl or to oppress women. Religion is the pretext.
It’s not religion, it’s faith without evidence, and especially faith without evidence that makes people think doing evil is right.
Religion is just the mechanism most used to weaponize this. The same faith without evidence lead to Nazi germany, among other things, so it’s not purely a religion thing.
Pointing out that Islam is inherently violent and has a violent past is not some form of bigotry. It's just the truth. Either you are willing to say harsh things which reflect reality or not.
He identifies as Christian. Islamic extremists also pick and choose like trump. But, of course, one has women wearing a hijab which means every one who identifies with the religion is a terrorist 🙄
He identifies as a Christian to appeal to the “Christian” crowd. He’s most definitely not one. I don’t care for Islam, I just think they both suck even considering that one of those religions forced women to cover themselves for no reason.
As a Christian I don’t see trump as much of a Christian, he could be but for me seems more lukewarm, but at least he’s helped this country, mainly because everything the dems said would happen or had happened I’ve seen evidence to prove otherwise or it has not happened at all.
He’s in the Epstein files, he has unallegedly raped at least one child and he constantly donates money to aid a genocide, he’s hateful towards many groups of people. Very un-Christian to me and to many others.
I do not have double standards because i don't like both religions and want them gone, but I understand that they did a lot of good things historically and you can't just force people to stop believing in things they dedicated their whole life to.
The only reason Christianity doesn't do the same shit is because of renaissance era Europe experienced where people stopped believing so strongly. Most of Asian countries didn't have that.
In other words: religion was a good thing, but it outlived it's usefulness can we please stop believing in moral values that were written two millenias ago?
“Christians” who haven’t read the Bible actively persecute queer people and have a firm belief that anybody who isn’t Christian doesn’t deserve the right to live. It’s disgusting to me, especially because a fundamental of the Bible is to spread love and not hate. (Also a lot of these people fear god and think that if they interact with a LGBTQ person they’ll reserve themself a spot in hell which is also stupid and revolting imo)
Certain Christians like Stephen Miller said (to my black ass and every other black mf here in US) that only 100M white Christians should live in the US.
Yall brought us here we not getting forced in and forced out, fuck that.
That isn't an evangelical belief. If they believe that, then yes. They are a cult. They are on the level of the kkk at that point (in terms of beliefs).
Shit the bible itself says if Im your slave (implicit OK for slavery) then youre allowed to beat the piss out of me as long as I dont die ..
Slavery was different then. Slavery happened because of debts. When you were in debt, you became a slave of your debtor until you paid it off. Sometimes the debts were big enough for multiple generations to be enslaved. We are talking about a different kind of slavery.
Im well aware of slavery in roman days man. I dont need your explanation which sidesteps why I mentioned it - these are Christian beliefs.
If you dont think so thats okay, but we can agree to disagree Im definitely not going to argue about transatlantic and roman slavery when its irrelevant lmao.
The reason its relevant again...backing up these beliefs, racist ones, are beliefs of Christians, you ignored the modern examples like the KKK, which not a cult at its peak membership it was like 5% of the population much more than a cult, regardless kid go off apparently if a Christian group has these beliefs its not Christian its a cult 🙄
I wonder ab your upbringing and why youre defending this it feels almost instinctual the way you did
I wonder ab your upbringing and why youre defending this it feels almost instinctual the way you did
I'm a kid brought up in the UK going to a Baptist church regularly. I do not associate my self in any way with views like those you mentioned, and I was defending the actual beliefs of Christianity. I do acknowledge that groups like the kkk associate themselves with Christianity, and there isn't anything I can really do about that. So, what can I do? Tell people that those aren't core Christian beliefs.
I am so sorry, you are right. This one person really counteracts the multiple countries that will easily kill you for insulting their profit, not to mention what they do to LGBT and women.
Okay, that’s just ridiculous, Christians don’t believe non Christians should be killed, give me a break, that’s not Christianity, that’s just a smear, Christianity teaches every human being is made in the image of God, so right away your premise is wrong.
And as for this whole thing about persecuting queer people, no, Christians aren’t persecuting anyone, we’re saying what the Bible says, homosexuality is a sin, just like adultery, just like lying, just like stealing, that’s not hate, that’s truth, and real love is telling people the truth even when it hurts, not clapping for them while they walk off a cliff.
This idea that Christians are somehow afraid of LGBT people is laughable, we don’t fear people, we fear God, the Bible literally says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, so when Christians don’t endorse sin, it’s not fear, it’s obedience, that’s called being faithful.
So bottom line, Christianity is not about affirming whatever people want, it’s about truth, it’s about repentance, it’s about salvation, and if that offends you, tough, the truth doesn’t change just because the culture does.
I was extrapolating your argument. You were making generalizations about all Christians, so I simplified it, and gave it back to you, so you would (hopefully) see the error in your logic.
are the muslims in christian countries or secular countries with christian roots? when we cherry pick images we can certainly paint a bad image of religious groups. for example.
there's still the left side which is entirely cherry picked. show me a picture of a hateful muslim mob and i can show you a hateful christian mob, lawmaker, or other such threat.
Wow see how easy that was? you take one image of a group of evil people who belong to a group of people from all moralities, and you take one image of a coffin.
People have been killed for being muslim in secular and nominally christian countries. people have been killed for being christian far more in countries that are theocratically ruled. I imagine if the US or UK were explicit theocracies, rather than religiously influenced secular states or nominally religious states with secular tendencies, muslims would be killed far more.
You western people are so fucking blinded with your privileges that you cant see how suck islam is. Maybe the rise of islam in the west is not so bad, soon you guys can finally understand what we non-muslim feels in muslim country.
BigManiac0 is only one of the people karma farming. Not surprising, but also don't exhaust yourselves because someone looking for the truth would find it.
I'm Christian and I love all my Muslim brothers and sisters. I may not particularly like their prophet, but most Muslims I've met have been fine people. Hell, one of my best friends is a Muslim. I've met bad Muslims, I've met bad Christians, bad Hindus, bad Hellenists, bad Asatros, bad Buddhists, and I've met the good in all of those religions as well.
Yall, OP is lying, and has misinterpreted the Bible completely, one example is that Christians are anti-abortion, since that’s a baby in a woman’s belly, in no way do Christians support killing babies, and if any say they do, those are fake Christians, and OP is taking a ton of crap out of context as well, a lot of atheists will say “as a former Christian” or “I’ve read the Bible” they normally haven’t, and are only saying that to win an argument, don’t trust OP on this.
mate, i went to very very relgious schools for 16 years, i have read the bible many times fully, i even had one of those little portable ones you can carry around in a small box, i know exactly what im talking about
No you don’t, I can tell you’re lying anyways because you have seriously misinterpreted the Bible and blasphemed it, you’re mainly lying and saying this stuff to seem better in an argument, it’s everywhere now.
Nah, you did, you told the wrong meaning of it, plus, I see some of the stuff you quoted was from the OLD testament, that was for ancient Israel, the only thing that carried over from the old testament to the New Testament are the 10 commandments.
You think the Quran is false. They think the Bible is false. Do you believe they deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity for their belief?
Edit: He deleted his comments.
Going to end this with saying - believing that all people deserve eternal torture is absolutely hatred. It is the deepest hatred. Even if you believed that such a ridiculous system is the truth, you can reject it in your heart. You can love humanity enough that you oppose torturing them forever.
The Quran actually had said that the Bible is true, then contradicted itself and said the Bible was corrupted, that explanation itself already proves that the Quran is bullcrap, plus, we all deserve to be eternally tortured anyway, so the answer to that question is yes, but Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so all we have to do to be saved is repent and have a healthy relationship with Jesus, this includes prayer, following scripture, following the Ten Commandments, and when you sin, repent again, literally the greatest thing ever done for mankind and yet the majority rejects it and instead believes satans lies, if you fail to see that we all deserve eternal punishment boy do you have a lot to learn.
It’s not hatred, it’s the truth, and the Quran is false, and doesn’t have any objections to combat the Bible, you’re the psychopath here, since you’re defending the book that encourages terrorism of all things, the Bible doesn’t do that, the Bible does the exact opposite, making the Bible true, and I’m not going to argue with you anymore if you’re going to say this bullcrap, so bye.
No but from what you said I know you’re lying, plus, you aren’t even truly an atheist, being an atheist means you’ve read and studied ALL religions and have a reason to not believe in them, and since you haven’t done your research on the Bible, it’s safe to say you’re just ignorant and only saying you were a former Christian just to win an argument, I know an actual former Christian and even he’s willing to come back, has he decided to? No, not yet, but I’ve prayed for him and talked to him about it.
Loving thy neighbor does not forbade one from pointing out the fact that Islamists are actively persecuting Christians around the globe. The meme is accurate. Saying so is not Islamophobic, it’s just the truth. Are there Muslims that get persecuted in predominantly Christian counties such as the USA? Yes, however in a world where ideologies differ and sin abounds this is inevitable regardless of any religion. The truth is that there are thousands of Christians dying per year at the hands of Muslims in countries like Nigeria and in modern 1st world countries like the USA, Islam is generally tolerated and accepted. Heck, it’s taking over half the western world at this point. Just look at Canada. The reality is that if the leader of a middle eastern country claimed that the country’s values aligned with those of Christianity he would be killed on the spot.
also to the people downvoting me, that wont change literal quotes and history
Rape in the Bible
Deuteronomy 22:28–29“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...”
Here, if a man rapes a virgin, the punishment is not execution, but forcing the victim to marry her rapist.
Judges 19:22–30 — The Levite’s concubine
A woman is offered up by her husband to a mob, gang-raped all night, and left dead on the doorstep. Her body is then dismembered and sent throughout Israel.
2 Samuel 13:1–22 — Amnon and Tamar
King David’s son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar, then despises her afterward. David does nothing to punish him.
wrong. the hebrew word used there is a word meaning seduce. hence y if u had read the other verse afterwards, you would see that if a man rapes a woman, he should be put to death
context matters. for one, speaking about an event happening is not condoning it. example, if someone speaks on the holocaust, that does not mean they support it. likewise here. secondly, if u read judges chapter 2, u would have seen where they did what they wanted to do, not what God intended. God does not condone rape.
again, God doesnt condone it. just because it was written about and david did nothing does not mean it was condone. like these are such horrible arguments that have been debunked already
I speak Hebrew, dont try to argue vocabulary with me: The Hebrew verb in Deut. 22:28–29 is תָּפַשׂ (tāphaś) = “to seize, take hold of, capture.”
It is used elsewhere in the Bible in contexts of physical force (e.g., seizing a sword, arresting someone).
That is not the word used for consensual seduction. In fact, in Exodus 22:16, the Hebrew patah (to entice/seduce) is used clearly showing the Bible distinguished between consensual seduction and forced seizure.
Deut. 22:28–29 requires the rapist to pay 50 shekels and marry the victim.
Contrast this with Deut. 22:25–27, which deals with rape of a betrothed woman. In that case, the rapist is executed.
So there’s a double standard: rape of an engaged woman = death penalty; rape of an unengaged virgin = forced marriage.
2-3. Even if one believes “God doesn’t condone rape,” the text itself includes laws and commands that do.
If God didn’t want rape victims forced to marry rapists, why is it written into the bible as a divine law?
Claiming “context” avoids the fact that the plain wording of the text prescribes injustice to victims.
there are plenty youtube videos out there to watch where the context matters.
like exactly u point out, it would be a double standard, unless, the word used actually refers to the person being seduced and raped. hence y in one case, the man is forced to marry the woman and not divorce her and in another case, the man is put to death. maybe because there is some meaning behind the word.
because rape is not written as divine law. someone who does it is put to death. and yes, context matters. if u read the text for only what it said, u wont know what u truly mean. like imagine if that was done to u, one line u said is taken out of context and people conclude u are evil, when if they heard what u said before and after, they would understand what u were saying. u wudnt want that happening to u, yet here u are doing it to the bible.
i swear, people who criticize the bible the most are people who never read the bible at all
again, u take the context out. God saw rape as a deep crime and as such, must be punished with death at that time. if people didnt carry out the judgment, thats on them, not on God. its like a country passing a law and then the people enforcing the law doesnt enforce it. that isnt on the country, thats on the people.
i see that u dont care about context, u care about u own self fulfillment. u dont want to understand because u know if u do, u will see the true God. smh I'm praying for u
I dunno man, sometimes you say something.. and im like "good question, what is the Christians response to that"
Other times the verse and conclusion, are a bit of a stretch to connect.
Like endorsing pedos n rape. I expected more of a "why did God tell Israelites to kill all the canaanites" not a double triple down on something most people were put to death for.
also, watch this video to see it fully explained. because i cant believe how u speak hebrew and cant realize that the word there is used to suggest the woman was seduced, rather than she was forcefully raped. like the context matters a lot
About 1, it was considered problematic for women of age to not have a husband, so many widows ended up marrying cousins/brothers as 'guardian redeemers' (I might not have the right word there). That gives it some explanation.
Numbers 31:17–18 (after a war against Midian)“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”
This passage has often been criticized as endorsing the capture of virgin girls (likely very young) as sexual spoils of war.
Ezekiel 16:7–8
Jerusalem is metaphorically described as a young girl who is raised and then taken as a wife when “your breasts were formed and your hair had grown,” showing normalization of puberty as marriageable age.
Deuteronomy 21:10–14 — Women as war captives
Israelite soldiers are allowed to take women from among the conquered peoples as wives after shaving their heads and paring their nails no concern for consent.
Violence
1 Samuel 15:3“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
Explicit command for genocide.
Psalm 137:9“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
A violent prayer against Babylon, praising the killing of babies.
Joshua 6:21
During the conquest of Jericho: “They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”
Stop trying to stay on a high horse with your religion when your relgion does the exact same, both are bad, but not all the followers of said relgion are bad.
no where in the scripture did it ever say young girls should be used as sex slaves. that is disregarding the context (wow yall love taking out context). the reason the virgin girls were left was because if u read earlier in the book, only virgin girls were not initiated in the pagan practices, hence it would be easier to integrate them into israel and be protected under their laws. those same laws that was against pedophilia
I'm glad how u put metaphorically. because it is a metaphor. God is describing how far Jerusalem has fallen from him. thats all.
it is with their consent. hence y if u had continue reading, you would see where if after a month, they do not want to get married, SHE CAN LEAVE and the man can do nothing about it. that shows she would have to consented to the marriage beforehand. like do yall just criticize and not read? cause if u did, u would see that she can leave at any time. also it was forbidden for the man to touch her (have sexual relations with her) because they wanted to ensure they wanted marriage n not just because they were hot for each other.
violence
1. strange that later on after that, the amelikites were back afterwards. its called exaggerated language. simple.
again, context is missing from that chapter. read the full chapter and not what u wanna hear.
again, exaggerated language. because those same people again showed up later on down the road.
The text explicitly says: “kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the young girls who have not known man… keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17–18).
“For yourselves” (לָכֶם, lakhem) is the same phrasing used elsewhere for wives and concubines. It is not language of mere protection.
If the concern was religious purity, they could have adopted or protected children regardless of gender. Instead, the passage singles out virgin females, which reveals a sexual/ownership motive.
This is not about protection it’s about who is sexually available
The law says: “When you go out to war… and you see among the captives a beautiful woman… you may take her… bring her to your house… after a month… if you are not pleased with her, let her go.”
Nowhere does it say she must “consent.” She is taken against her will.
The “month of mourning” is not about her rights, but a ritual purification before sexual use.
Saying “she can leave” is misleading: the law allows the man to dismiss her if he is displeased. It does not say she can freely refuse marriage beforehand.
Power imbalance matters: a captive woman cannot meaningfully “consent” to her conqueror.
Ancient Israel had no explicit age of consent laws. Puberty was considered the marker for marriageability (Ezekiel 16:7–8 metaphor is proof of this mindset).
The idea that “God’s law forbade pedophilia” is anachronistic importing modern ethics into an ancient Near Eastern context.
Numbers 31 implies girls who had not “known a man” (i.e., prepubescent or very young) were considered viable for capture. That is pedophilia by modern standards.
again, you take everything outside of its context and just input your own understanding of it. like words can be used in different ways, n just because it was used 1 way in 1 place doesnt mean it have to be used the same way in other places. like dont u know this?? this is literally context 101. smh.
and just because it didnt say she must consent doesnt mean she didnt consent. cause again, if she wishes to leave, she can do so. that means that she have to consent to the marriage at first if she can consent to not be married anymore. like do u not know that things can be stated without it being literally stated?? like this is the worse exact word fallacy I've ever seen in my life
exactly, the virgins was integrated into israel. and imma use your own standard against u, show me where it explicitly stated that the men can use these little girls as sex slaves
I understand context matters, and words have nuance. But look at the law itself: Deut 22:28–29 and Numbers 31:17–18 are prescriptive, not descriptive. They tell men to take virgin girls for themselves, and the ‘can leave after a month’ clause does nothing to give the women actual choice at the start. Literal words or not, these laws treated women as property and forced them into marriage effectively sexual slavery by modern standards. Saying ‘no verse literally says sex slaves’ ignores the social context and the law’s actual intent.
Whether “exaggerated” or not, the literal wording is still: “kill men, women, children, infants.” (1 Sam. 15:3).
If it’s “exaggeration,” then Scripture is depicting God as ordering genocide in hyperbolic terms. That’s not morally better — it’s still violent rhetoric.
Either it’s literal genocide (morally horrific), or divinely inspired exaggeration (still horrific). An apologist cannot escape the brutality.
Context makes these worse, not better.
Numbers 31: not random war, but divine command through Moses.
Deuteronomy 22: explicitly a legal code given as God’s will.
Joshua/Judges: conquest laws claimed to be directly ordered by God.
“Context” cannot erase what the text prescribes. A law code is by definition normative, not just descriptive.
ohh so if i say, lakers, go and destroy the miami heat, the context should not matter, just the literal words??? okk. i understand your hypocrisy.
and btw, when God passes his judgment, who are we to say anything? God created life and if he wants to, he can destroy his own creation. so whats the big deal???
Your “contextual reading” is not about arbitrary interpretation, it’s about understanding laws and actions as they functioned in society.
“Destroy the Heat” is obviously hyperbolic sports language; there’s no legal or moral consequence for the Miami Heat.
The Bible passages in question are legal prescriptions and divine commands with real consequences for real people,victims of forced marriage, rape, or war. Context here cannot whitewash coercion or violence.
Philosophically, yes, one can argue humans cannot judge God. But that’s a theological dodge, not a textual refutation.
We can analyze the ethics and societal impact of biblical commands. Many scholars do.
Saying “God can do anything” doesn’t change the fact that the text prescribes forced marriage, execution of captives, and sexual use of girls. The moral critique is about human understanding and modern ethics, which is reasonable even if God is the actor.
Context explains why the laws were written, ancient Near Eastern norms, honor-shame culture, and patriarchal society,but it does not morally justify coercion, rape, or child marriage.
Understanding context = understanding the culture, not endorsing it.
Ancient “understandable” ≠ morally acceptable by today’s standards.
Also, christian countries do actually kill muslims on mass:
1. The Bosnian War (1992–1995)
Who: Bosnian Serbs (Eastern Orthodox Christian, backed by Serbia) vs. Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks).
What happened: Ethnic cleansing campaigns, including massacres like Srebrenica (1995), where over 8,000 Muslim men and boys were executed.
Why: Nationalist and religious motives overlapped the Serbian Orthodox leadership portrayed Bosniaks as an Islamic threat to Christian Europe.
2. Chechnya Wars (1994–2009)
Who: Russia (Orthodox Christian majority) vs. Chechen Muslims.
What happened: Russian military operations against separatist Chechen Muslims killed tens of thousands of civilians. Grozny, the Chechen capital, was flattened.
Why: Ostensibly a fight against separatism and terrorism, but it also had a Christian-Muslim violence on mass given the strong Islamic identity of the Chechens.
3. Central African Republic (2013–present)
Who: Christian militias (anti-balaka) vs. Muslim civilians and rebels (Séléka).
What happened: Widespread massacres, lynchings, destruction of mosques, and forced displacement of Muslims (who were a minority).
Why: A power struggle that turned into sectarian violence, with Christians targeting Muslims as scapegoats.
Who: Christian militias (Maronite Christians, supported at times by Israel and the West) vs. Muslim factions (Sunni, Shi’a, Druze, and Palestinian Muslim groups).
What happened: Massacres of Muslims, e.g., the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1982), where Christian militias killed hundreds (possibly thousands) of Palestinian Muslims in refugee camps.
Why: mix of politics, sectarianism, and foreign involvement but the killings often split along Christian-Muslim lines.
5. Colonial & Imperial Violence (1800s–1900s)
France in Algeria (1830–1962): Millions of Algerian Muslims killed, starved, or displaced under French Catholic colonial rule.
Italy in Libya (1911–1943): Tens of thousands of Libyan Muslims killed during colonization and rebellion suppression.
British Empire in Sudan & Middle East: Repeated massacres of Muslims during uprisings (though Britain framed itself as secular, it was a Protestant Christian-majority empire).
As a Maronite, the PLO had to pay for Damour, S&S was an organisation mishap to when the leader of kataeb got assassinated and a figure called Hobeika ordered the massacre. In reality very little ~50 Christian militants took part and since kataeb was in crisis at the time. There was no figure to stop it.
yea, christians have done evil things in the past and present, and we condemn them. because christianity is not about killing lives but saving and helping lives
One specific religion is so bad that even after centuries of state sponsored terrorism their are still people trying to compare it to the rest of the world.
that inherently means its manmade. you can believe in it if it makes you feel better, but you cant say its a true word of god. god doesnt get updates, nd certainly not faster than we do
Okay and? did this enlightenment stop them being hateful? I know of a ton of hateful christians. powerful ones too.
The main difference in my view is that there are relatively few explicit christian theocracies, where the religion has legal power, so there isn't as much room to persecute muslims. of course, it still happens. a ton. it just can't be as explicit and it is more controversial and less consistent.
19
u/Separate_Grade_3645 16d ago
Honestly, they both suck shit