And yes, all religions have troubled pasts if they have existed for that long. You're have the right to practice them unless what you're doing is ethically wrong.
As a note: nowhere is that said in the new testament, the only point it's found is in Leviticus, which also states pork is unclean, you shouldn't shave, and that you cannot wear clothing of mixed fabrics...
Yeah, the new testament passages the pearl-clutchers all love quoting refer to the physical act of abusing your sexual organs, not queerness in and of itself.
Even the tale of Sodom and Gamora isn't about "Sodomy" despite the phrase being coined as such.
Sodom and Gamora were already damned when the Angels came down to protect Lot (and the angels were, indeed, Angels, angels do not have a gender nor sex, they are androgynous creatures beyond such concerns).
Sodom and Gamora were being smote because they rejected Lot and his family, whom were outsiders.
Folks who use that story, also seem to miss all the themes...
That entire story was basically expressing how humans are, by nature, disobedient and sinful.
Lot's wife turns to look back out of curiosity and is turned to salt (which is an echo of the old Orpheus and Eurydice tale of Orpheus being told to not look back at his wife as he exited Hades or she'd be gone and-whomp...)
Lot's daughters later seduced him in the wilderness.
So the entire tale there is interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with "Sodomy" - it's mostly about:
"Hey, these are bad behaviors of people. Don't reject your neighbors like the people of Sodom and Gamora. Do not rape people. Do not disobey the word of God. Do not screw your father."
I agree, that is one of the multiple words that frequently gets condensed into "homosexuals."
The successors of Peter and the Apostles have clarified that, taking into account the entirety of Scripture and everything else we have confirmed about what Christ passed on to them, the sin is the physical act, which is an abuse of your sexual organs. The mental state of "being queer," however, is not a sin in and of itself, since it is not a willful action, and willful action is required for culpability.
IMO this shows the people who wrote those scriptures were simply too ignorant to understand sexual orientations. We didn't even begin to understand them until a few decades ago and even today there are still people who think being gay is a choice.
Nope it's said in the NT too. People should stop pretending it's not. Jesus doesn't say it, but Paul does.
The solution to getting rid of the inherent homophobia of christianity isn't to make it something that it's not, it's to throw the bible in the trash where it belongs.
In Islam he is given significant stature as a prophet, the final prophet before Muhammad.
But in Islam he is not considered divine, he did not resurrect after crucifixion (in fact in some Islamic interpretations, Jesus was only made to appear to be crucified. He did not die on the cross but rather was saved by God and ascended to heaven).
Islam believes in Jesus being resurrected, but it'll happen when the anti christ shows up, and then the war will happen etc etc. Also, we don't say Jesus died, we believe he is alive and is with Allah until he returns for the aforementioned
I don’t know much about the Quran, but I know the Bible has a genocide of the entire world via flood and multiple stories about entire cities and civilizations being killed so that the chosen can populate.
If there are comparable stories in the Quran do tell, cause I’d love the knowledge for future reference.
Oh you tapped into a juicy one. In the Torah she is an actual salt pillar in Israel, in the Bible she only turns to salt then daddy gets thirsty for his own girls, yes in that way, and in the Quran the family escapes by the angels turning into little boys revealing why the locals are sodomites and in that version lots wife lives.
I remember one time talking to a fellow volunteer at a polling location. I told her allah and god were the same and that Muslims worship the same god as Christians and Jesus is also a messiah to them. She said i was wrong.
Verifiably false by the way. Communism has spilled more blood than anything else in history. By an absolutely staggering degree ahead of anything else as well.
When people claim that communism caused “more deaths than anything in history,” they usually repeat a talking point based on the highest, often speculative estimates from Cold War era writers. Those numbers lump together famines, wars, incompetence, natural disasters, and even population shortfalls as if they were intentional killings.
If we look at actual historical data, the deadliest events in human history are not ideological systems but pandemics, colonialism, imperial expansion, global wars, and premodern diseases. The Black Death alone killed an estimated 75 to 200 million people. European colonization caused over 50 million deaths in the Americas. World War Two caused roughly 70 to 85 million deaths. These dwarf even the most exaggerated claims about communist regimes.
It is fine to criticise communist governments, but pretending that “communism killed more than anything ever” is just propaganda, not history.
Unintended consequences of something does not mean that it's now free of blame if I accidentally hit someone with my car I still killed them so yes the unintended consequences such as starvation which by the way highly debated if that one's unintended or not and famine and plenty of other systems any and all means of abuse were fully utilized there's no question to the validity of that so I think you need to take your Wannabe socialist communist ideologies and put them under a microscope and actually evaluate these things because you can't just sit there look at something that's caused literally hundreds of millions of deaths and pretend that oh That's because one guy didn't write something out fully enough or because something was simply bastardized in a slightly different manner than what it was intended it's a faulty system no fans are butts about it
Yeah that isn't supported by historians, not even a little. Even the highest, most politically motivated Cold War estimates don’t reach “hundreds of millions.” The commonly cited figure comes from The Black Book of Communism, and even that lands around ninety million worldwide, using methods most scholars consider inflated or flawed.
A good example of why those numbers are unreliable is that the Black Book literally counted Nazi soldiers killed on the Eastern Front as “victims of communism.” That alone shows how stretched the methodology was. Modern demographic research usually lands much lower because it does not lump unrelated wartime deaths, natural famines or population shortfalls under one ideological label.
So when you say “hundreds of millions,” you are not describing documented history. You are repeating an exaggeration several times larger than even the harshest anti communist literature claims.
As for your “car crash” analogy, intent and cause matter. Historians do not just take every famine, war death, natural disaster or demographic estimate and treat it as if it were a deliberate ideological murder. They break down the specific political choices, environmental conditions, economic pressures and wartime factors involved. That is why serious academic research does not support the simplified moral arithmetic you are relying on.
And if we used your standard consistently, we would end up attributing hundreds of millions of deaths to non communist systems as well. British rule in India caused repeated man made famines that killed thirty to fifty million people in the Victorian period alone. European colonization of the Americas led to the deaths of well over fifty million Indigenous people through disease, war, slavery and forced labor. The transatlantic slave trade killed tens of millions more across its full pipeline, from coastal raids to the Middle Passage to plantation mortality. Add in the Congo Free State, where a private capitalist regime caused millions of deaths through forced labor and terror, and the Irish Famine, where a million died while food exports continued, and you are already deep into nine digit territory.
And yet no one says “capitalism killed a hundred million people” or “liberal democracy killed the Americas.” That sort of rhetorical math is only used against communism, often with figures inflated by counting things like Nazi soldiers dying in a war they started.
If you want to talk about historical responsibility, that is fine. But the standards have to be consistent
Thats not even talking about the natural plagues and epidemics / pandemics that happened.
Say and think waht you want but "Communism has spilled more blood than anything else in history." is just objectively false.
I am genuinely at loss for words here. Rene Descartes and cogito ergo sum? Devout Christian. Occam? On the record his razor cannot be applied to the supernatural. Pascal? He offered a wager to remain or become Christian since you have nothing to lose if there's no afterlife. Newton? Viewed physics as a hobby and wrote a book on how to talk to angels.
Grok was trained on human knowledge, it can deliver an answer like any theologian or any theosopher
Wow, Allah's love is conditional, proving it's a scam, unlike God's love (which is conditional on not being queer)
Don't forget "you have no morals or ethics if you don't believe".
"Only Atheists have morals, the religious have reward and punishment. That's not morality, that's sucking up."
-Penn Jillette.
I mean, how can you say killing is evil if you don't believe people who die get to go to an eternal paradise?
As a note: nowhere is that said in the new testament, the only point it's found is in Leviticus, which also states pork is unclean, you shouldn't shave, and that you cannot wear clothing of mixed fabrics...
Yeah, the new testament passages the pearl-clutchers all love quoting refer to the physical act of abusing your sexual organs, not queerness in and of itself.
Even the tale of Sodom and Gamora isn't about "Sodomy" despite the phrase being coined as such.
Sodom and Gamora were already damned when the Angels came down to protect Lot (and the angels were, indeed, Angels, angels do not have a gender nor sex, they are androgynous creatures beyond such concerns).
Sodom and Gamora were being smote because they rejected Lot and his family, whom were outsiders.
Folks who use that story, also seem to miss all the themes...
That entire story was basically expressing how humans are, by nature, disobedient and sinful.
Lot's wife turns to look back out of curiosity and is turned to salt (which is an echo of the old Orpheus and Eurydice tale of Orpheus being told to not look back at his wife as he exited Hades or she'd be gone and-whomp...)
Lot's daughters later seduced him in the wilderness.
So the entire tale there is interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with "Sodomy" - it's mostly about:
"Hey, these are bad behaviors of people. Don't reject your neighbors like the people of Sodom and Gamora. Do not rape people. Do not disobey the word of God. Do not screw your father."
That's the lessons.
Except Jesus said he didn't care what you did with your sex organs.
No, they don't. The NT passage is clearly about the act of gay sex among men, and it's a rephrase of the Leviticus passage.
People who say it's a mistranslation or whatever are either lying or unknowingly referencing liars.
I agree, that is one of the multiple words that frequently gets condensed into "homosexuals."
The successors of Peter and the Apostles have clarified that, taking into account the entirety of Scripture and everything else we have confirmed about what Christ passed on to them, the sin is the physical act, which is an abuse of your sexual organs. The mental state of "being queer," however, is not a sin in and of itself, since it is not a willful action, and willful action is required for culpability.
IMO this shows the people who wrote those scriptures were simply too ignorant to understand sexual orientations. We didn't even begin to understand them until a few decades ago and even today there are still people who think being gay is a choice.
Nope it's said in the NT too. People should stop pretending it's not. Jesus doesn't say it, but Paul does.
The solution to getting rid of the inherent homophobia of christianity isn't to make it something that it's not, it's to throw the bible in the trash where it belongs.
Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet of God.
Christians consider him to be the same as God.
In Islam he is given significant stature as a prophet, the final prophet before Muhammad.
But in Islam he is not considered divine, he did not resurrect after crucifixion (in fact in some Islamic interpretations, Jesus was only made to appear to be crucified. He did not die on the cross but rather was saved by God and ascended to heaven).
Islam believes in Jesus being resurrected, but it'll happen when the anti christ shows up, and then the war will happen etc etc. Also, we don't say Jesus died, we believe he is alive and is with Allah until he returns for the aforementioned
Yes, sorry I did not mean to misrepresent, I was simply trying to contrast.
No worries bud, no one has perfect knowledge of religions, I'm sure I still have a lot to get right too
I don’t know much about the Quran, but I know the Bible has a genocide of the entire world via flood and multiple stories about entire cities and civilizations being killed so that the chosen can populate.
If there are comparable stories in the Quran do tell, cause I’d love the knowledge for future reference.
"Kill your son to prove your faith"
No, you see, god was joking about that one. Though he did turn someone’s wife into a pillar of salt for daring to look at the destruction he created.
Oh you tapped into a juicy one. In the Torah she is an actual salt pillar in Israel, in the Bible she only turns to salt then daddy gets thirsty for his own girls, yes in that way, and in the Quran the family escapes by the angels turning into little boys revealing why the locals are sodomites and in that version lots wife lives.
Didn't Lot's daughters rape him, rather than him wanting it?
Yes, they did.
Apparently the Great Flood story is in the Quran too
https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood1-t-quran_a/
I remember one time talking to a fellow volunteer at a polling location. I told her allah and god were the same and that Muslims worship the same god as Christians and Jesus is also a messiah to them. She said i was wrong.
That allah is a different god…
Allah just means God in Arabic lol
It's like saying that the United States doesn't exist in France because they have something called Etats-Unis
More blood has been shed over religion than anything else in history.
Verifiably false by the way. Communism has spilled more blood than anything else in history. By an absolutely staggering degree ahead of anything else as well.
Also simply not true.
When people claim that communism caused “more deaths than anything in history,” they usually repeat a talking point based on the highest, often speculative estimates from Cold War era writers. Those numbers lump together famines, wars, incompetence, natural disasters, and even population shortfalls as if they were intentional killings.
If we look at actual historical data, the deadliest events in human history are not ideological systems but pandemics, colonialism, imperial expansion, global wars, and premodern diseases. The Black Death alone killed an estimated 75 to 200 million people. European colonization caused over 50 million deaths in the Americas. World War Two caused roughly 70 to 85 million deaths. These dwarf even the most exaggerated claims about communist regimes.
It is fine to criticise communist governments, but pretending that “communism killed more than anything ever” is just propaganda, not history.
Unintended consequences of something does not mean that it's now free of blame if I accidentally hit someone with my car I still killed them so yes the unintended consequences such as starvation which by the way highly debated if that one's unintended or not and famine and plenty of other systems any and all means of abuse were fully utilized there's no question to the validity of that so I think you need to take your Wannabe socialist communist ideologies and put them under a microscope and actually evaluate these things because you can't just sit there look at something that's caused literally hundreds of millions of deaths and pretend that oh That's because one guy didn't write something out fully enough or because something was simply bastardized in a slightly different manner than what it was intended it's a faulty system no fans are butts about it
Yeah that isn't supported by historians, not even a little. Even the highest, most politically motivated Cold War estimates don’t reach “hundreds of millions.” The commonly cited figure comes from The Black Book of Communism, and even that lands around ninety million worldwide, using methods most scholars consider inflated or flawed.
A good example of why those numbers are unreliable is that the Black Book literally counted Nazi soldiers killed on the Eastern Front as “victims of communism.” That alone shows how stretched the methodology was. Modern demographic research usually lands much lower because it does not lump unrelated wartime deaths, natural famines or population shortfalls under one ideological label.
So when you say “hundreds of millions,” you are not describing documented history. You are repeating an exaggeration several times larger than even the harshest anti communist literature claims.
As for your “car crash” analogy, intent and cause matter. Historians do not just take every famine, war death, natural disaster or demographic estimate and treat it as if it were a deliberate ideological murder. They break down the specific political choices, environmental conditions, economic pressures and wartime factors involved. That is why serious academic research does not support the simplified moral arithmetic you are relying on.
And if we used your standard consistently, we would end up attributing hundreds of millions of deaths to non communist systems as well. British rule in India caused repeated man made famines that killed thirty to fifty million people in the Victorian period alone. European colonization of the Americas led to the deaths of well over fifty million Indigenous people through disease, war, slavery and forced labor. The transatlantic slave trade killed tens of millions more across its full pipeline, from coastal raids to the Middle Passage to plantation mortality. Add in the Congo Free State, where a private capitalist regime caused millions of deaths through forced labor and terror, and the Irish Famine, where a million died while food exports continued, and you are already deep into nine digit territory.
And yet no one says “capitalism killed a hundred million people” or “liberal democracy killed the Americas.” That sort of rhetorical math is only used against communism, often with figures inflated by counting things like Nazi soldiers dying in a war they started.
If you want to talk about historical responsibility, that is fine. But the standards have to be consistent
Thats not even talking about the natural plagues and epidemics / pandemics that happened.
Say and think waht you want but "Communism has spilled more blood than anything else in history." is just objectively false.
Allah means God.
Both religions worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Yep, same god, slightly different rules but not by much.
That's conservatism in a nutshell. Make up a narrative, stick to it.
They're dug in.
Referring to a language model ai to prove your theology claims is… untenable, embarrassing
I am genuinely at loss for words here. Rene Descartes and cogito ergo sum? Devout Christian. Occam? On the record his razor cannot be applied to the supernatural. Pascal? He offered a wager to remain or become Christian since you have nothing to lose if there's no afterlife. Newton? Viewed physics as a hobby and wrote a book on how to talk to angels.
Grok was trained on human knowledge, it can deliver an answer like any theologian or any theosopher
Batman v superman all over again
Do they forget that the crusades were a thing?
I'm not defending the Bible at all but how many 9 year olds did Jesus fuck?
He might not fuck them but his sky daddy advocate they be sold into slavery...
Well, according to biblical scholars Mary was around 13 when she was impregnated against her will by God.