Firstly, glad I didn’t have coffee in my mouth to spit out. Second, it’s just wild that there is an entire world out there where Noah’s ark being found if a fact.

My boyfriend (24M) and I (24F) have been together for 5 years now. We are serious and are both thinking of marriage within the next 2-3 years. Recently, he began going to Church frequently and became a firm believer of Christianity. I myself am born Catholic and was an avid Church-goer in the past, but have not been practicing these last few years.

I like to think of myself as an atheist now, and his recent conversion has been causing great friction in our relationship. He told me that he doesn’t see us getting married unless I share the same beliefs as him. He feels our marriage will only be subpar if I don’t centre God in my life as he does. This really stung as we have had a great relationship all this while and I don’t see why he’s giving me this ultimatum.

He has asked me if I was willing to try and deepen my faith slowly, but I am hesitant. I understand the Church’s view on partners being “uneqally yoked”, but I can’t bring myself to believe in something I genuinely don’t. I believe we both have good values and morals so we will be able to work things out in a marriage regardless of our belief systems.

Unfortunately he doesn’t share the same opinion. I don’t know if we are just no longer compatible or if I should just try to meet him where he is at.

This is well worth the watch! Both Atheists and christians can hopefully get a laugh out of it. But for real though, the contradictions in the Bible are too many to count!

Was having a discussion with a religious friend. Our conversations are never contentious and I know I’ll meet her through to them but I find it amusing.

The phrase she used to counter my point was:

“Logic is the enemy of faith”

Like… I feel like that should have been a point i made against religion. Not one made for it.

So let's say someone passes away. There is sadness, grief and just all around a hard time. You go to a church and do that it's the same way until it's time to talk. SO THEN INSTEAD OF THE DECEASED PERSON GETTING RESPECT THE CHURCH THEN SAYS BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE ALL GLORY TO GOD AND THANK HIM AND HOW HE HAS DONE SO MUCH FOR US, HOW HE'S SUCKED OUR COCKS. HOW HE'S DONE THIS AND THAT.

Basically it seems there is no respect for the deceased, you can't say one minute "oh my I can believe Jerry is gone" and then say "WELL THIS IS A DAY ABOUT JERRY BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST WE HAVE TO THANK THE MOST SPECIAL PERSON FOR BRINGING US HERE TODAY"

So all in all it's not really about that person, it's about your God. Basically fuck the dead guy, thank you God. What a bunch of clown bullshit. It's even worse when there's live music and people are up there clapping and singing happy Christian music

Motherfucker JERRYS DEAD THEY MESSED HIM ALL THE WAY UP YOU HAD TO HAVE A CLOSED CASKET FUNERAL BECAUSE HE WAS SHOT BUT YOU WANNA CELEBRATE?!

Man this shit pisses me off, it's sad truly it's sad

Idk how tf religion flip the table arguing abt god n morality, while they ignore the whole point beyond it..

if the only thing stopping you from harming, stealing, or disrespecting others is the threat of eternal torture, yr a slave, not a decent human...

Like, if that inviable god decided to appear for sb n commanded him to spill the blood of who don't believe in him or whoever the target is, you will fuck up everything .. (tf, I've just invented some religions .. but anyway)

If you can't treat people with basic human dignity just because they exist, but only because a book told you to, that isn't goodness. That's compliance.

Tf

The Pope has cancer and that is very sad. But I always find it just a little odd when people who are all about the power of their church and the power of prayer abandon all that and turn to science the minute they are really sick. Does that mean that they concede that prayer is less powerful than science? How much less powerful? When is prayer useful and when is it useless? Seems to me they are conceding that prayer may be emotionally satisfying, but in reality it does nothing.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is inarguably the central tenet of the Christian Religion. And so one would assume, wrongly, that it is well documented in the bible. All four of the NT gospels give a different version of this “miraculous event”.

Matthew 28:1 describes the scene this way:

28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:1 says:

16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Luke 24:10 states:

¹⁰ It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.  

John 20:1 reads as:

20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

John states Mary Magdalene was alone when she discovered the most miraculous occurrence in human history. Matthew would have us believe that Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” witnessed the miracle. Mark states the two Mary’s and Salome (whoever she is), witnessed the most miraculous occurrence in human history. And Luke throws another curve ball by stating it was the two Mary’s, “Joanna” “and the “other women” that witnessed history changed. But Luke couldn’t be bothered to even give the names of the “other women”.

So what did this/these “witness(es)” see. That depends on which gospel you’re reading.

Matthew 28:2 states:

² And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Mark 16:4-5 states:

⁴ And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

⁵ And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:2-4 describes the scene thus:

² And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

³ And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

⁴ And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

The Gospel of John states the Mary Magdalene (alone) found only an empty tomb and she ran to inform the apostles. It was later after she and the apostles return to the tomb, and the apostles leave that:

John 20:11-12:

¹¹ But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

¹² And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Now was the tomb already open when the witness(es) approached as Mark, Luke and John state, or was it more “Hollywood movie like” with and earthquake (nice touch) and an angel descending from heaven as Matthew would have the (gullible) world believe?

And what did the witness(es) find there? Was it an angel descending from heaven as Matthew states? Was it an initially empty tomb as described by John? Was it two standing men in shining garments as described by Luke? Or was it one young man clothed in a long white garment as Mark states?

The bible states four different versions of witnesses and events. Such “testimony” in any court of law in the modern world would be thrown out of court due to obvious perjury.

How can any adult of at least average intelligence believe such an obvious fabrication?

Firstly, thank God my camera was lagging.

Second, it’s fascinating that there is an entire alternate reality where people treat the plot of the movie Lucy like peer-reviewed neuroscience.

Firstly, Jesus was a Jew living under Roman Occupation. meant that he was a second class citizen by birth. One of the reasons why he was crucified and not executed or given a lenient punishment was because he was not a citizen for example. Additionally, the very reason that supposedly almost had him killed as a baby was literally the Herodian dynasty, a Roman puppet government who was best friends with the Julio claudian dynasty.

Despite this, from what the gospel say about Jesus, he was not a revolutionary. Unlike many Jews of the time who were against Roman occupation and were vocal about it, Jesus preached to turn your other cheek. “Wait that’s taken out of context?” OK then he said not to resist against evil during the sermon on the mount. He told Peter who had his ear cut off by an occupying soldier, not to fight sword with sword. And he told people who were under Roman occupation, being heavily over taxed, asking who they should have loyalty to— their god/sovereignty or the Roman’s— to “give to caesars what is Caesar’s”… pretty tone deaf if you ask me. He consistently dodged questions that were political.

This was why he was rejected by many people. Because he preached a kingdom of heaven and not on earth. Which sounds great at first. Until you consider that this meant that he would not side with revolts or had care for earthly independence, even if they were against brutal foreign oppressors. Not only was just contradicting to the original messianic prophecies, but it’s just being a bootlicker coward. The Pharisees or people who question him about this are consistently portrayed in the Bible as “sneaky” and “devious” for asking very real and important questions as the function of the messiah was expected to deliver the Jews out of foreign oppression and bring peace.

Most apparently, see that Jesus was rejected for that reason with the probably fictional account of Barrabas. Barrabas was the criminal who Pontius Pilate allowed to be freed in exchange for Jesus. The crowd chose barrabas. What Christian’s forget to mention was that barrabas was an anti-imperialist anti-Roman agitator. His crimes were directly against the Roman empire and resisting the occupation. In Christianity, Barrabas is simply portrayed as a sinner in Jesus as this perfect being who cannot sin. Even if Barrabas’ crimes are related to resistance against oppression. Again, Christianity from the beginning labels revolution by any means necessary as an inherently bad thing And instead preaches pacifism and acceptance.

This also explains why early on Christains took on pacifist stances. When there were Judean in revolt against the Roman empire in hopes of seeking independence, Christian’s often sided with Roman settlers or took a “no opinion” stance. this is a pattern that repeats throughout history.

now, we see people trying to rebrand Jesus for PR. Whether it’s hateful Jesus or revolutionary Jesus. Sorry, but Jesus wasn’t a revolutionary and it’s one of the reasons why he was literally rejected as the Messiah in the first place. He was the opposite of a revolutionary. Christianity holds back revolution and resistance.

So we were at some farm tour and this guide/spirituality dude held up a Rudraksha and said it has an "electromagnetic pulse" that "merges" with the "heart's electromagnetic energy" and lengthens the wearers lifespan

This to any sane person is nonsense, using random scientific terms to validate crap, also the dude himself seemed to genuinely believe it and my parents just nodded along and bought it and a bunch more nonsense shit very falsely advertised by this guide for like 5k INR (52usd)

I couldnt even say anything because then my parents would get mad at me and they're not even that religious istg this is just scamming people idk how this is not illegal or considered scamming in general like its literally claiming demonstrably false things about a product