Bible rule

Problem is that when they see "love they neighbor" they look around and only see straight white folks, so they assume everyone else is excluded for some reason

When I was in Sunday School, we were given a strict (Catholic Catechism) definition: Your neighbor is anyone you meet. It doesn't even specify any "human." My mom always brought home that point whenever animal cruelty was discussed.
Of course, my parents who taught me that lesson are still Catholic and yet super proud of my identity. Very chill with my trans spouse. Even marched with me at a local pride event.
Maybe they're the exception but "love thy neighbor" does still have tangible meaning to some folks.
- I’m glad to hear that they are so supportive, that’s awesome! I hope my Catholic parents are as accepting when I come out to them as trans
- Yeah might be a translation issue. In the german version it's not "neighbour" but rather "the one next to you".
- I love your parents btw
Race science was created specifically so that they could see non-white people as non-people. This was done so that Christians could (just barely) hold onto their belief system while committing all of the atrocities of the colonial era.
- I actually just happened to be reading a relevant part of Lies My Teacher Told Me that quotes Montesquieu (French philosopher who influenced the US founding fathers):
  It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures to be men, because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christian.
Do they see "love thy neighbor?" I think many ignore that part entirely
I promise you they hate straight white guys too, if you even express a hint of kindness.
It was a racial clause from the beginning. -The word wasn't needed otherwise. -Same as the sexual clause 'neighbour's wife' instead of 'spouse'.
And context supports that:
'Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets', 'Do not go among the Gentiles', 'I have come only for the lost sheep of Israel', 'it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs'.
- I mean the Bible is pretty clear on this. In response to the question, "who is my neighbour," Jesus answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. In Christianity, everyone is your neighbour.
  In Judaism there was a lot of debate about it historically and I don't know where things stand now.
- Strange, because Leviticus says
  You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
- You are totally misrepresenting the last verse.
  He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
  “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
  Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
  Jesus is being called out by the Cannanite woman and is in the wrong here.
  “Do not go out among the Gentiles” is in the context of his specific instructions to the apostles at one point in time. The commission is expanded later.
  You can’t pick and choose isolated verses - you’re acting like a Christian.
- Are you saying that the term neighbour was chosen here so that there's a way exclude certain people?
They’re called to “love thy enemy as themselves” as well. So it’s not just their neighbors, but also the people they hold hatred for that they are called to love.
They just see the kids in their church.

Wow tax collectors catching strays even 2000 years ago.
- Publicani were really hated. Roman Empire had a tax farming system where private individuals paid the taxes in certain area out of their own pocket and then tried to make a profit by collecting the taxes from that area to themselves. Made it so that the state didn't have to concern itself with the actual collection and got a guaranteed sum. But it also made it so that it was beneficial to the publicani to try and squeeze as much taxes out of the people to either not have loss or to have maximum profit. Though the term publican covers more than just tax collectors.
  Apostle Matthew was a publican.
- The system hasn't changed much since then. That's why Jesus is still popular. Everybody still hates rich people, the state, etc.
Transcription for those who need it:
Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version
Love for Enemies You have heard that it was said "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Suddenly, Republican Christians: "You can't just take quotes from the Bible out of context and apply them to your argument! 😠"

Trust me, it's mostly Christians taking them out of context and denying clear statements. For example, Charlie Kirk spun: 'but what did the original word for slave mean in the Bible'. Well context actually defines the word for us:
Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
I've never seen a Christian effectively argue context by showing context (as above).
- Trust me, it's mostly Christians taking them out of context and denying clear statements.
  That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at
Me, 89% of the time when I see or hear Christians use this statement.
- What do you do the other 11% of the time?

If you need a manual to be a good person, you aren't a good person.

So much for every state on the planet. Completely codified morality. Created and maintained by certified "bad people".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion
Explaining this to my son's kindergarten teacher.
Just purge all the selfish 5 year olds now! They'll never learn if they haven't figured it out already.
Yeah, what's wrong with wanting to be a good person? Are we going back to eugenics now?
If you think you can classify 'good' and 'bad' people in a oneliner you are incapable to deal with the complex nuances of our reality.
- Oh, another oneliner.
- It's the religion that classifies as good or bad, heaven or hell. We are talking about that, get a hint.
  And yeah, generally, goodness has to come from the heart or it's selfishness. Even if you account for the complexities of the human mind.
- Love each other. Even trans people? "Complex nuances"
  This classification is idiotic! Objectively 'bad'. I classify this opinion as bad. Evil.

I find it sad to fall back on 2000 year old literature to justify our behavior.

When someone uses the Bible to justify their hate or bigotry, it’s very easy to throw back in their face. They never believed any of it — especially not anything that radical leftist Jesus taught — it’s a tool that represents whatever they want for their manipulative, selfish, self-centered purposes. What is written there doesn’t matter. It never did.
Watch as they dismiss you anyway, with greatest hits like:
“That’s not what {$DENOMINATION} teaches.”
“That’s just heretical.”
”So your interpretation is right but everyone else is wrong?”
”You’re taking it out of context”, especially after you just added context to a thing they were deliberately taking out of context.
“Even the devil can quote scripture.”
- “Even the devil can quote scripture.”
  Oh the irony... you're killing me with that one.

There's no hate quite like Christian love.

The Muscular Christianity movement of the mid 19th century really took issue with this. Back then church attendance was 4:1 women to men and manly men were having trouble maintaining interest because Jesus' message was "too loving and gentle" so not very manly. They started redefining Christianity according to "manly" virtues, particularly they kicked all the women out of their administrative roles in church, started building sporting complexes next to churchs and reframed the old thinking of physical vigor being a form of vanity to instead being a sign of moral and spiritual excellence.

I'm not kidding but they even changed the appearance of Jesus, commissioning art work where he was depicted with broader shoulders and a more defined chest, signalling readiness for action.

Modern toxic masculinity is a "despiritualized" adaptation of Muscular Christianity.

Which is kind of funny, as some would say Jews of Old Testament times were expecting their coming messiah or king to be some kind of military leader. One who might lead them against the oppression of the Romans. Maybe kind of like Moses.
Not to mention the pale skin...

Attempting to use the bible as a source for good just doesn't work because they are always exceptions and hateful rhetoric in other bible chapters they can point to.

Or they can wholesale just make shit up like all the evangelical rapture crap. Hell, look at even the constitution and how that's been stretched and colored for all of the anti-progressive rhetoric in the past.
Even when I was a religious child, I still found contradictions in the bible. But, as you know, when you were a young naive child like everyone of us and found something odd, we're told to ignore it and just don't think about it.
Gotta use what Jesus said, not the "bible".

"then you ain't one of mine. go on, git!" -Jesus apparently, Gospel of John chapter 13 verse 35

Show me the part where Jesus says to stone all the queers. I'll wait.

so, as a gay man i agree with the sentiment however
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
it’s real easy to find references, but part of that is shoddy biased (or just ignorant) translations… part of it is selective interpretation (guess we can wear mixed fabric and eat pork… and what was that about the camel and the eye of the needle? i’m pretty sure it applied to billionaires)… and that’s all with the assumption that the bible wasn’t just written by a bunch of people that saw a way to make a (figurative) buck
finding a statement that supports pretty much anything you’re doing is pretty easy… this is how we got the crusades and witch trials after all, despite thou shalt not commit murder
- That’s Leviticus.
  Leviticus is Old Testament. If you actually read the Bible and follow its teachings, a Christian is not supposed to be following the Old Testament. That’s why it’s the “old” testament and now there’s a New Testament that is supposed to be followed instead of “Old Testament 2: zombie boogaloo”. The Old Testament is there for context. The whole idea of the New Testament is god came down to look upon his world as one of his creations, went “this shit’s kinda fucked” and started handing out new rules to make the place a little less fucked. It’s a real shame that most Christians haven’t read the Bible and depend on old guys in strange buildings to tell them what a book says, world would probably be a lot cooler if these people could be bothered to fucking read.
  “Love one another” is not a complicated line full of subtext and what-ifs. You don’t need an old dude at the front of a crowd to tell you what it means, unfortunately there’s very few actually good Christians out there so now we’re here.
  Anywhere, here’s a few great lines to throw at shitty people who use the Bible as cover for being bastards:
  1 Timothy 2:12
  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
  This one was particularly good at convincing my Bible thumping aunt to leave me alone when I told her I was bisexual and an athiest. She started lecturing Bible verses at me and I hit her with Ye Olde “Shut up bitch”
  Mathew 6:1-34
  _Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. _
- This is most likely a mistranslation, probably originally meant to say with boys as in minors
- I'll be contrary here. It's not easy att all to make the Bible say what you want. You have to commit to incredible mental gymnastics that involves consciously being malicious, including ignoring specific and repeated passages explaining how the practice (of using the bible as a weaponry or deliberately misinterpreting it) is sending you to hell, while simultaneously posing as a believer to convince the other party that they subscribe to only those concering beliefs truthfully, in an insane torrent of cherry picking that only ignorance flavored psychosis or beligerence can explain. While I'm certain many are just swept into the former, at least a disturbing few are engaged in the latter.
Show me the part where Jesus says the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. I'll wait.
Show me the part where Jesus says conservatives are also people. I'll wait.
Show me the part where Jesus says you can't say fuck on the internet. I'll wait.
I could go on forever. I would love to express how utterly fucking dumb it is to base your moral compass on one book only (which prooooobably doesn't cover all areas of life, society, science, etc.), let alone one that was written more than a millenium ago, but I guess once you ignore everything else (such as scientific proof, actual observations, wellbeing of others) and only stick with whatever a select few people tell you, and believe it unconditionally, there's no point bringing up logic.
- I'll be honest, this was mostly an assumption. I'm not even a Christian. So yes, agreed.
Show me the part where it's okay for priest to have relations with minor male children. I'll wait.

I think that Jesus' meaning was "love one another unconditionally" regardless you are foreigner, woman, LGBT person, or an outlaw. Jesus was a leftist (and of course just a historical person, not a deity).

a historical person
That's up to debate.
- In almost the same way that the earth being round is up for debate

They will usually respond with "hate the sin not the sinner" or something like that, idk but never give good reason why being LGBTQ is a sin

Well a lot of people professing to be Christians could do a lot better at loving LGBT people than they are doing right now, so I say take them up on that.
"A revolting bit of casuistry," as Christopher Hitchens put it. The problem this justification is that homosexuality is what people are and not what they do, and hating someone's inherent and immutable trait is the same as hating the person themselves.
- Yeah, you are right.

And John 8 while we're at it. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.

According to the ai, they’re all going to hell

Using God's name in vain means to misuse or misrepresent God's name, often by invoking it for false oaths, empty promises, or inappropriately associating it with harmful actions. It emphasizes the importance of honoring God's name and not using it lightly or for wrongful purposes.

Every fundamentalist who insists they know god’s will and can inflict it on you is in violation of this commandment

I think you're right about a lot of fundamentalists, but you need to be careful with the "knowing God's will" part because Christianity is based on the Bible and the Bible teaches you what God's will is. So, in so much as someone is basing their words on what the Bible means by what it says, then they are not taking God's name in vain. But the moment they twist what the Bible means to fit their own narrative, then they are.

Show me where in the bible Jesus ever said to place actual laws of government preventing anything LGBTQ+ from taking place

I prefer 'be excellent to each other' from the book of Bill and Ted.

Station!
Don't forget 'Party On, Dudes!' Most of the cults i started had BillandTedology at their hearts.

Also, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Clearly homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. Sorry, you simply aren't going to convince a fundamentalist to agree let LGBT folk be, when you have quotes like this in the book. Saying "jesus said love" isn't going to do it. Best strategy is the one that has been working. Education, so that people don't take religion so seriously or literally.

You're right, the Bible is full of contradictions, which I believe is fully on purpose, so that the devout can point to all the times God says love and say "look, my religion is one of love, my God is a god of love!" And then use that to justify committing all the other heinous act condoned in the Bible.
- We won't ever know for sure but treating the contradictions in the Bible as intentional is probably giving more credit to the people who initially created it than they deserve.
  More likely, they just just didn't really plan it out and instead shit was added piecemeal over time ultimately leaving a lot of contradictions.
  Anyways, it seems much more likely that this happened organically rather than being intentional.
- The council of Nicaea all but confirms your suspicion. It's pretty strange to me that nobody (to my knowledge) in the past 1,700+ years has cared to create a contradiction free Bible. I would cut out unreliable narrators and known forgers from my version. Who knows maybe I'd even include parts of the Apocrypha as well.
Weird how you're downvoted. Religion just isn't a good guide to live by but that's not your fault. Education is key.
I mean... there's a substantial difference between agreeing with a lifestyle, and persecuting that lifestyle. I assume you aren't currently picketing churches and harassing religious people, for example. The Bible is clear that an abundance of things are sinful, but Jesus consistently sets an example of loving prostitutes and tax collectors and Roman soldiers and everyone else Jews of that day hated.
So what this tweet is claiming is absolutely valid, the New Testament is immensely clear you should love everyone, and you shouldn't give "fundamentalists" a biblical pass for ignoring one of the most fundamental points the Bible makes, in hopes that they'll be willing to completely discard religion. They should be educated on their own damn book, and it's perfectly reasonable to call them on that.
Clearly homosexuality is wrong according to the bible.
There is no "the bible". It's a subjective collection of texts. While lots of people worship Paul as if he were a god, he's not actually Jesus.
- Dude this is what I'm SAYING all the time. The only possible valid collection of the Christian Bible is the parts quoting Jesus. Everything after is fan fiction and blatant manipulation.
I blame that damn council of Nicaea for grouping so many random books together. As far as I'm concerned Marcion's writings are the only cannon I would recognize. But seeing as it's almost completely lost, I'll have to be satisfied with ONLY the books of Luke and Acts from the Lexham English Bible translation.
If I'm feeling particularly frisky I'll include the infancy gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas..
To me, it seems that every other book in the currently accepted biblical canon was written purely out of Apologetics. "oh shoot I need to justify my opinion.. Oh look I found a new book that fits my agenda" then they said "Contradictions? No, [insert book/verse here] was written for X target audience so it doesn't apply here. My book is relevant to you!"
Bonus content:
Spicehoarder's Heretic Bible - First Edition:
Luke (LEB)
ACTS (LEB)
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Judas
But the question is about Jesus, and the references are in the new testament so it's correct. idk, the dude is supposed to be the son of god after all...
Please, dick going up a butthole fits too perfectly for it to not be natural. Same goes for sucking. What they are referring to is the Roman practice of grooming children. Having a sexual relationship with a boy you adopted is unnatural.

As far as the Bible goes, John was good. Great opening, and an overarching theme of "just be nice".

Fuckin pussy
- ?

Bigots make what the Bible says in John 11:35 happen.

In the Bible, one of the people Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin version of the text, the word they use is for a specific type of slave, a male usually kept as a concubine or sex slave.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek.

If you want to be a good person (go to heaven (how selfish)), just don't be an ass to people. Especially to people you don't know.

So pretty much just John.

They say he's a pretty chill dude
He did outlive the others, according to some accounts. So he had some time.
And in fairness, it's in a lot of other places too. Some more verbatim, some less.

Jesus fucking himself christ, pastor, really good job there, dipshit. Pure brilliance.

I think John might have had a bit of a crush on Jesus, given that he was very interested about whenever Jesus said 'love'. Maybe he was hoping for a confession?

Something something least of something something me

"acshully the hegemonic god idol agrees with me"

fuck jesus

"Did you know that sometimes the bible actually sometimes doesn't command genocide. Isn't it so uplifting and worth defending?"
- Almost as if it’s a compilation of books by multiple authors with multiple perspectives, and treating it like it’s supposed to be a cohesive text that’s supposed to have a single message makes it impossible to understand as a historical text…
The hegemonic god idol is capital. The other "religions" change from place to place and have very little actual power compared to the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion