It is disgusting to be a homosexual and claim to belong to a Christian denomination. Not only because Christianity is a superstition that is unsupported and without basis in reality, but because it is essentially anti-homosexual. Of course, there are some denominations that support homosexuality as being just as valid as heterosexuality, but these are the minority. Will you support and defend that church (whichever one), the same one that calls your orientation an "aberration" and "abomination", and that actively supports legislation that would either directly harm or end protections of both yourself and those like you?
Even if you would answer yes due to some extreme case of self-loathing, you would still come out as an idiot, seeing as the Christian religion - as with all others - is simply a superstition that simply does not deserve a place in modern society.
Let us post evidence that Christianity, specifically, is not real. We can start with historical evidence, but literary (literary criticism) evidence is also welcome.
"...by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period."
"Archeologist Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho to the middle of the 16th century, too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of excavations."
"The various books of the Bible clearly show evidence of rewriting and considerable editing. Most accept the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the final editing of the Biblical text may have been as late as the reign of Artaxerxes II (405–404 BCE)."
"According to Biblical scholar Thomas Thompson: 'There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the Davidic legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. Stories are not enough.'
"None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories."
"Culturally, the Bronze Age collapse is otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom."
"Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period."
"There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents: the Books of Samuel exhibits too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example, there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common) (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE."
"The historicity of the Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites actually emerged Canaan in a relatively peaceful manner, themselves an offshoot from the Canaanites."
Go away fedora
>>6143090
Go away, Christcuck - shouldn't you be praying to your dead kike right now?
Inconsistences in the New Testament:
>Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem
First of all, the only census (that of Quirinus, a Roman administrator of Syria) enacted at the time that would have roughly corresponded to the time of Jesus does not at any point stipulate that citizens had to "return to their hometowns for registration." In a Judea populated by Hellenes and Latins (from as far away as N. Africa and Gaul), this would have been unfeasible, and would have resulted in economic chaos and confusion. Secondly, it is unreasonable that a tax census would care much about the places of origin of people; rather, a tax census would have been focused on where people were currently living, for more efficient taxation. This stipulation is merely an invention by later scribes who wished to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in an attempt to appeal to Jewish messianic expectations and convert them.
>Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents:
At the time, Herod was a Roman vassal, who was not free to rule as he wished. The Romans very much knew of the resentment to their presence, and would have prevented any arbitrary action on Herod's part that would have been likely to create instability (such as ordering troops to massacre newborns). At no point is any massacre at Bethlehem mentioned outside the Gospels: not by the Roman administrators, not by Herod's courtiers, not by the Sanhedrin or the Jewish Priesthood, and not even by the historian Josephus, who in every respect was critical of Herod I. In 6 CE, the ethnarch Herod Archelaus (son of Herod I) was removed from power by the Roman authorities after the Jews petitioned the Roman administration, due to Herod Archelaus' cruelty and incompetence. This shows the Romans were tuned in to the complaints of the Jews, and surely would not have allowed such a 'massacre of the Innocents'.
Inconsistencies in the New Testament:
>The Release of Barabbas
There is no evidence from any source that indicates either the Jews or Romans had any 'tradition' of releasing a prisoner on Passover. It is believed the Barabbas story arose from the following: the name 'Barabbas' simply means 'son of the Father', and is not a proper name, but rather an epiphet, and possibly one that was ascribed to the historical Jesus. It is likely a Greek scribe, when translating/transcribing the Gospel story, misunderstood the 'Barabbas' epiphet and believed that this was in reference to another different character aside from Jesus.
>The Conversion of Paul en route to Damascus
Paul of Tarsus - a problematic man whose agenda will be addressed later - claimed that the Jewish Sanhedrin sent him to the city of Damascus to arrest and essentially kidnap those who believed in Christ, so as to bring them to Jerusalem for trial. The problem here is that the Jewish Sanhedrin had no such power or jurisdiction. The city of Damascus was located in the Imperial Province of Greater Syria, distinct and separate from Judea. The Jewish Sanhedrin itself had been stripped of many of its previous powers, and during most of the Roman administration, they were barely allowed to maintain a police force to monitor the Temple grounds. It is pure invention, that Paul should say that the Jewish priests - themselves Roman vassals - were sending men from Judea - a vassal state - to an Imperial Province to arrest private Roman subjects, where they clearly had no jurisdiction. Had the Romans caught wind of it, it would have merited the probable execution of the Jewish priests and stripping of nominal Jewish prerogatives.
Paul of Tarsus - the man responsible for Christianity as it is today - was simply an obsessive Hellene that hijacked the Christian religion for personal gain/fame.
Paul preached a number of doctrines that were considered disgusting and pagan by the original disciples such as James and Peter (who had actually spoken with Jesus).
For one, these original disciples held Jesus to be an annointed human (Messiah) and prophet: at no point did they believe he was pre-existent or that he was God, as Paul taught.
The Biblical NT, unfortunately, is written in a pro-Paulian light, seeing as Paul's epistles were written down before the Gospels had coalesced, and as such, when the Gospels were being transcribed later on, they were written down through the lens of Paulian theology.
The Jerusalem Church of the original disciples (led by Peter and James) was destroyed and scattered due to the famous revolt of 70CE, meaning Paul's school in Asia Minor was able to survive without any competition.
To this day, a few hints still remain in the Bible that speak to researchers of conflict between Paul of Tarsus and the original disciples of Jesus: the Incident at Antioch (in which which Paul got BTFO'd), the interpolation of "Jesus' hometown/family rejection". The original disciples believed Paul to be a lunatic at best, and possibly a demon. He was an usurper who never met Jesus in life and who had no knowledge of Jewish theology or scripture (hence the awkward Christian understanding of the OT), seemingly more familiar with the Attic mystery cult of Greece and neo-Platonism.
It is safe to say that Christianity as it is today is based completely on Paul's teachings: the original teachings of Jesus are lost, and may never be known, thanks to the persecution of the Ebionite 'heretics' under the Church, who were a remainder of the original disciples that revered James and held Jesus to be a prophet, but certainly not divine.
I agree: only because homosexuality goes completely against the basis of any religion. They all want you to breed and fill this world. We are not breeders. We are "the beautiful ones".
>>6143061
>LGBTs should not cling to Christianity
Oh please.
What is gayer than kneeling and worshipping a perfect man?
Then Jesus said unto them:
"Take, Eat.
This is My Body."
Matthew 26:26
>>6144582
Nailed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJBKwzoLzLo#
>>6144582
>Then Jesus said unto them:
>"Take, Eat.
>This is My Body."
>Matthew 26:26
That's an invention of Paul of Tarsus, influenced by Attic mystery rites. The historical Jesus would not have said such a thing, as it violates the most fundamental of Jewish laws.
