#Cherry-picking in the Bible

[toubledrouble]

You know what we should bring back?

Older christianity. I mean the anti government, anti military, community based christianity. The one that cared the most about peace, equality, mercy, kindness, and radical love. The one with shared property. The one that didn't conform to society but instead existed mostly outside of it. The one where noone considered one sin worse than another because in the end, we are all sinners trying our best to be better.

[deservedgrace]

something that i've been struggling to articulate but has been bothering me for a while is how some christians engage and interact with science and what i'm realizing is they have a like... almost love-bombing/discarding relationship with it. and i recognize science isn't a person and that's not literally happening but the christians that i grew up around have this relationship with science where it's real/valid/correct if it supports their side and fake/invalid/wrong if it doesn't. it's this like... engaging with science to get something from it when it can prove their point and condemning it when it doesn't. and this also ties into the belief that you, a layperson with no background in science, are more knowledgeable than actual scientists simply because you have god on your side, and therefore you can use science in whatever way you see fit, which means engaging with it in a way that is ultimately anti-science (but that also doesn't matter because god said it was okay). and it's exhausting engaging with these people for me because it's not that they believe all science bad, it's that they believe most science bad but some science good and they have the authority to determine what is bad and what is good, despite, again, not having a background in science (because what is a "background in science" to an all-knowing god that you have a personal relationship with?). the thing that is so frustrating to me is how these people recognize science is valued and use it to strengthen the validity of their points and to gain credibility while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the validity of science as a field at all or put in any effort to understand/respect it.

[iamnotcoolenough]

MATTHEW 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves."

This line is so important these days. Everywhere I turn, especially on the Internet, I see people who are cherry-picking the bible and spreading misinformation. Or they use Jesus to spread hate and lies. It's sad. And alot of people won't pick the bible up to read it. They will just take anyone's word for it and call it a day. I am not ashamed to say I used to fall for the lies because I'd never read the bible for myself. And I know many christans who haven't either they just let someone else tell them what the Bible says and they let others tell them what the Bible means. But thats not what a relationship is. It's not talking through other people. It's direct. The bible is a revalation of God and what he wants for us.

So to anyone who hasn't read the bible this is your sign to do so.

[vaguelyaperson]

alright Imma need tumblr philosophers to accept that just cause something is in a Book™️ doesn't mean it's the ✨️Absolute Truth.✨️

need y'all to accept that most non-fiction books are a thesis, which means it selects evidence to make an argument; more so, with different/new evidence, that argument can be built upon, made more nuanced, or outright disproven. need y'all to accept this goes doubly true with any book discussing philosophical theory - which often base their arguments less on empirical evidence and more on hypothetical/anecdotal scenarios.

if you believe something cause you agree with books you read on it, that doesn't make you 100% automatically right; you still need to be able to support your argument, and be willing to accept new evidence.

[commonmexicanname]

We were told visually that Aziraphale would become the Supreme Archangel

When we are first introduced to Aziraphale and Crowley, they are facing the right side of the screen, what a lot of us link to being east. Makes sense since he's guarding the eastern gate.

But Az is on the left and after this, Az faces the left side of the screen. From their introduction, he's almost always to the left or facing the left side of the screen.

"Yes, the angel is always on the left. We've known that! It's supposed to represent the angel being on your left shoulder."

Right, but you know what else is represented on the left?

I can't claim that this was all done on purpose from the very beginning, but it was fun finding this. We were shown from the very beginning that Aziraphale would replace Gabriel and become the Supreme Archangel.

Then again, it could all have just been a coincidence.

What do the hands of God mean?

I asked myself the same thing! Welcome to the brain rot religious rabbit hole portion of this post. Running away is encouraged.

When I found this connection, I decided to delve a little deeper to see what exactly are the symbolisms and meanings behind the left hand of God. I was hoping to see if there was anything about being the left hand of God was somehow connected to Aziraphale and could give us a fun "this is sooo him" description. Kinda like getting the results of a personality test!

Spoiler alert, there isn't much to go off on:

The left hand is paradoxical, you say? It works in indirect and subtle ways? Almost sounds like the actions and decisions of a certain angel! It was a good start, until I kept going.

I couldn't find a lot of bible quotes about the left hand of God. What I did find were people's thoughts and interpretations of the left hand. There wasn't really a consensus because whenever I'd find one speculation or explanation, I'd find something that contradicted it. Some say it represents judgement, some say it represents a "self-deification and bow to no one" attitude. In some beliefs, the left hand represents evil and those who are born left handed were forced to use their right hand instead, although that's mostly a thing of the past now. Simply put, all I found were people disagreeing about what the left hand is all about. (heh) It's all a bit... complicated.

Then I pulled back and noticed that the conversations of the left hand reminded of the conversations around Aziraphale. Then my brain spiraled into thinking that maybe, just maybe, the fact that there's disagreement on the left hand was actually what the creators wanted the fandom to be like with Aziraphale. To cause this whole "actually bad! actually good!" contradictory thinking. That is the left hand is Aziraphale connection my brain latched on, the people's conversation! MIND BLOWINGLY CREATIVE WRITING IF INTENTIONAL!

*deep breath* Anyway!

If I now convinced myself to think God's Left Hand is Aziraphale coded, what about the Right Hand and it's meaning? Well, it just so happens that there are so many quotes about God's right hand:

10 So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. 11 All who rage against you will surely be ashamed and disgraced; those who oppose you will be as nothing and perish. Isaiah 41

That sounds rather protective to me. Almost as protective as a certain demon towards a certain angel. So far so good! Very generally speaking though, the right hand represents the power of a god. The very general consensus is that the right hand of God represents omnipotence. Something an occult being would need in order to say... create stars, galaxies, nebulas and even stop time.

Hmm, I wonder who is the right hand of God...

Ah darn, so close. That could've worked so well with a certain demon always being on the right.

A demon that got to hang out with the right hand of God...

Jesus said to James and John: "but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not for me to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." Mark 10:40

It could all still just be a serendipitous and unplanned coincidence.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"If you're going to pick and choose which parts of these you follow and which parts you conveniently ignore, at least pick the parts that only affect *you* and do not abuse others, violate their human rights, discriminate against them or otherwise cause them harm. Humans matter. Religion doesn't."

And have the decency not to lie when we point out that if you can pick and choose without divine repercussions, you've elevated yourself above your god.

[alpaca-clouds]

Of Christians and St. Paul

I have been venting about atheists recently, but I gotta vent about Christians, too. Like, I hate that the loudest Christians there are, are naturally those who do not give a fuck about the bible. Of course they claim to do and defend basically everything they do by cherry picking the bible, duh, but... they so clearly either have not read the entire thing or willfully misrepresent it.

Call me naive, but I kinda think that Christianity - if you call yourself a Christian - should be about Christ. That is Jesus. Meaning that for the most part the thing central to the religion should be the teachings of Jesus. And, well... As others have noted before, Jesus was a pretty leftwing guy. You know, the guy healing everyone, promoting living in poverty, saying that being rich was a sin, who supported sex workers and queer folks. Like, you know, as someone who has read the thing: Jesus was not like perfect. He also was fairly racist against some minorities within Galilae back then. Though he would still help the people from that minority, though he did so while venting about them. But all in all he is very much more basically the antithesis to any rightwing politics - and the politics of either the megachurches or the Catholic church for that matter.

Having grown up Catholic, I would so often think how appalled Jesus would be about all the gold and rare stones and what not presented in churches. That was like completely opposite to his teachings.

But the big thing is also that... you know. All the hateful stuff self-proclaimed Christians keep defending with their "religious freedom" is also quite opposite of the teachings of Jesus - and at times opposite of the entire fucking bible.

You know, the bible doesn't have an opinion on trans people. But this idea that Christians keep saying about it like that god made us perfect and that we should be thankful for our bodies very much is something the bible does not say.

Jesus also hung out with people that were considered queer at their time. And when you reference the old testament, you also should keep in mind that Jesus outright says "abandon the old teachings".

Oh, and another big stuff that modern Christians keep whining about is the entire abortion thing. But... Actually the bible is fairly clear that yeah, life starts at the first breath and not a moment earlier. Becuase it was believed in the ancient world, that the soul would only enter the body with that first breath.

Most of the hate those so called Christians keep spreading either goes back to the old testament or - even more commonly - to the letters written by Paul. Paul mind you, who was not an apostle or deciple of Christ, who also was not a prophet. He was just one of the earliest followers of the religion and helped to establish the religion in Rome.

I always keep saying, a lot of the "It is my religious freedom to discriminate" folks are actually followers of Paul, not of Jesus. And yeah, Paul was a horrible person. He was misogynist, he was ableist, he was racist and he was queerphobic. But again, he just was an early follower of the religion.

Like, the only reason why his stupid letters are in the bible is, because of political reasons. Because the bishops who decided on the canon wanted to defend their fucking hate against everyone else.

And I am sorry, but if you don't fucking care about what Jesus does say... Well, I am sorry, then you are not a Christian in my point of view.

[queenie435]

I would like to thank the Atheist for keeping some of these cherry pickers in line!

[technicallyaminecraftsimp]

My Christian math teacher just started arguing for gay right???????? Against a homophobic student?????????????? Using the Bible???????????????????

[here-for-the-vibe]

As a Catholic, I find it so ironic that the people who would preach to me every Sunday “Jesus said, ‘Love each other as I have loved you’” are the same ones who apparently just completely ignored the whole thing.

[feastingonchrist]

kind of getting to a point where i don’t care if people think i’m crazy for following Christ and that talking about the joy i have from Him online makes me sound crazy. I know it’s not true. But what is true is that i have never felt so at peace or like i am actually living and breathing before. This is the first time in my life where God is really bringing my dead and dry bones back to life. He is too good and i feel amazing!!! And this is just a tiny glimpse of it!!!

[mindfulldsliving]

Salvation and Scripture: A Latter-day Saint Approach to Faith, Works, and Modern Revelation

Faith, grace, and works are often hotly debated topics in Christian theology, and Ephesians 2:8–9 and Galatians 1:8–9 have long been central to these conversations. As Latter-day Saints, we affirm salvation through grace but understand that faith and works together reflect true conversion. Critics often claim these verses contradict our beliefs, but with context and revelation, they align…

[musclesandhammering]

mcu fans debate power levels without falling back on comics lore challenge: impossible

[queerpontmercy]

Hey I am your friendly neighborhood counseling student here to remind you that not only are diagnostic criteria not set in stone (DSM criteria are a shared language for professionals to communicate what they’re noticing), but also -- our understanding of trauma and what is traumatic has been evolving a lot even over the last few years as we talk about things like spiritual trauma, racialized trauma, etc. and it’s going to continue to evolve over time.

PTSD is useful language for a lot of people right now, but it’s a very narrow category of what we are growing to recognize as different types of trauma. For example, PTSD Criterion A is only just now recognizing that it can be vicariously traumatic for people to witness or hear of violent death/serious injury happening to someone else. And this is to say nothing of times our bodies say we’re going to die, even if intellectually and physically we’re fine. That happens a lot more often.

The DSM is fairly good at saying “hey, look at this cluster of symptoms/experiences that happen all together, let’s give them a name and communicate about them.” It’s also good at “legitimizing” those clusters to people, including the broader population. What it’s pretty bad, despite folks’ efforts (definitely not gonna say best efforts lmao) at is recognizing the breadth of human experience. It’s a psychiatric document and parts of it are incredibly  arbitrary- for example, why do you need 5 symptoms for Major Depressive disorder? Why not 3 or 4?

Which is to say, maybe your experiences don’t overlap completely onto the frankly very complicated criteria that designate what we’re calling PTSD. Maybe they do. But our understanding of trauma is not limited to what’s held in a book, so if something feels traumatic, by all means let’s explore that.

I talk to many people who say things like "oh I have trauma but I don't have PTSD", but then when I talk to them a little more I realize that they most likely do, they just can't recognize it as such due to how lacking PTSD awareness is, even beyond the whole "it's not just a veteran's disorder" thing.

The main reason they think they don't have PTSD usually has to do with flashbacks and nightmares, either they have one but not the other or have neither. But here's the thing, those are only two symptoms out of the 23-odd recognized symptoms. Flashbacks and nightmares are two of the five symptoms under Criterion B (Intrusion), which you only need one of for a diagnosis. The other three symptoms are unwanted upsetting memories, emotional distress after being reminded of trauma and physical reactivity after being reminded of trauma (i.e. shaking, sweating, heart racing, feeling sick, nauseous or faint, etc). Therefore you can have both flashbacks and nightmares, one but not the other, or neither and still have PTSD.

In fact, a lot of the reasons people give me for why they don't think they have PTSD are literally a part of the diagnostic criteria.

"Oh, I can barely remember most parts of my trauma anyway." Criterion D (Negative Alterations in Cognition and Mood) includes inability to recall key features of the trauma.

"Oh but I don't get upset about my trauma that often because I avoid thinking of it or being around things that remind me of it most of the time." Criterion C (Avoidance) includes avoiding trauma-related thoughts or feelings and avoiding trauma-related external reminders, and you literally cannot get diagnosed if you don't have at least one of those two symptoms.

"Oh I just have trouble getting to sleep or staying asleep, but I don't have nightmares." Criterion E (Alterations in Arousal and Reactivity) includes difficulting sleeping outside of nightmares.

"But I didn't have many/any trauma symptoms until a long time after the trauma happened." There's literally an entire specification for that.

Really it just shows how despite being one of the most well-known mental illnesses, people really don't know much about PTSD. If you have trauma, I ask you to at least look at the criteria before you decide you don't have PTSD. Hell, even if you don't have trauma, look at the criteria anyway because there are so many symptoms in there that just are not talked about.

PTSD awareness is not just about flashbacks and nightmares.

[wow-its-me]

GUYS I FOUND THE MEANING OF LIFE

Genesis : 26 “Then God said, “let us make mankind in our own image, in our likeness so that they may rule over the fish”

[soberscientistlife]

You can't cherry pick the bible