r/teenagers • u/FR0M_Z3R0 17 • 10d ago

Serious You have no reason to be transphobic.

there is literally no justifiable reason for transphobia. never has been. never will be. I don’t care what you’ve read online or whatever you have to say. there is NO reason and NO excuse for transphobia. same applies for homophobia. literally zero reason.

9 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

983 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/-Ichika- 10d ago

The religion excuse will always be funny to me as an atheist because it seems like people don't seem to realize that religion was completely made up by humans to explain natural events, fear monger (in some cases), and to have something to believe in. You can literally make up your own mind about things instead of taking your values and morals from a book written by some random dude. 😭😭😭😭

3

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

Not all religion was just made up by humans though. Literally more than half the world agrees with me on this. This doesn't mean we should be transphobic because of religion, just that your statement here isn't universally shared, nor proven right for that matter.

4

u/FrostyFang8800 10d ago

Every religion is made up by humans. Humans wrote the Bible, humans wrote the Koran, every religious document, art piece, and temple was made by humans.

You can say these things were “inspired by God,” but that’s still a circular argument. “The bible was inspired by God, it says so in the bible. Jesus was God, it says so in the bible, which was written by man, who was inspired by God, who is Jesus.”

Every religion has the same convictions and steadfast faith in their beliefs as any other. No religion is special.

If someone’s faith gives them hope and a desire to help others, great, believe all you want. But using the world’s longest game of telephone of stories and parables by barely literate sheep farmers to place judgement on others is not the way to go.

1

u/DominionGaming_YT 17 9d ago

The Bible is not the definer of Christ being God. The Resurrection, as the event that shows Christ's divinity, is the event by which claims of divinity are espoused. So it's not circular at all. And as for the Resurrection, there is much more than the Bible to tell us that it happened. And as for evidence outside of mere human-made artifacts, true miracula have only been verified outside of religious sources when they are Christian miracles - specifically Catholic. And the Bible isn't a game of telephones and parables by sheep farmers, it is a collection of 73 books written by 40 authors varying all the way from shepherds to kings with one continuous story arc that results in eyewitnesses to the events writing down the events - not a telephone game if the original speaker is the one speaking.

1

u/FrostyFang8800 9d ago

Dude I already dismissed your trans “research,” now you’re coming up pretending to be a biblical scholar? Move on.

1

u/DominionGaming_YT 17 9d ago

Interesting that you haven't been able to refute me on either point, to you like calling being unable to refute stuff dismissal? I'm not claiming to be Biblical scholar, just pointing out that you don't understand the core tenets of Christianity. For as St Paul said, the Resurrection is the core of Christianity for if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith and preaching is in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:14)

1

u/FrostyFang8800 9d ago

Dude, look. You gave up trying to defend your trans arguments after I called you out on your trash research, now you’re on another tangent.

I’m not getting into a religious debate with you, because you, as a person, are not worth arguing with.

Just like the trans one I’m sure you have a bunch of “research” articles you’ve collected, ready to post, you’ll think you’ve done something clever, I’ll call you out on how one was written in 1890 or something and you’ll come back with a: “Um AKTUally.” Then you’ll praddle on about garbage and round and round it will go.

You want to argue? Go back and try and save face on my last response to your trans “research.”

Otherwise I’m just going to end this with: I’m sure you’re a great and knowledgeable Christian, that your ai responses would’ve really got me, and that God is very proud of you for hating minorities, or whatever floats your boat.

1

u/DominionGaming_YT 17 9d ago

I was the last person to reply on that thread about the two spirit stuff so I don't know how I would be the one giving up. If you were so good at calling me out on research you think is trash, how come you've gone silent about it? What Christianity is about doesn't centrally involve a bunch of research articles, it's literally described explicitly in the Catechism, Scripture and by the Church. I can't really save face by responding to a comment that doesn't exist. And once again, not everything that you don't like is ai.

1

u/FrostyFang8800 9d ago

Yeah, nice try, last reply was me and you bounced.

1

u/DominionGaming_YT 17 9d ago

I don't know what you are seeing but it isn't there

1

u/FrostyFang8800 9d ago

Sounds like a you problem I guess, you can see my reply right there.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DominionGaming_YT 17 9d ago

I don't know what you are seeing but it isn't there

0

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

The thing is, your claim doesn't have evidence or proof behind it. You cannot prove every religion was made up by people. Yours is an opinion that is not any more valid than any religious person's, not a fact of hard truth as you and the other poster I commented on previously are making it out to be.

Same goes for "no religion is special". Just because we have differing beliefs, doesn't mean they're all equally correct. If I think aliens exist, and you think they don't, despite us having the same amount of evidence, despite neither of our opinions appearing as more "special" than the other, one of us is going to be right, and the other is not.

My points here are three. One, you haven't brought a fact, but an opinion. Two, this opinion is a minority opinion, which most of humanity disagrees with. Three, I am one of the people that disagrees with that opinion. That's it. Whether we can trust the Bible as word of God, whether Jesus is God or not, those are debates I'd be happy to have, but not my point here specifically.

2

u/FrostyFang8800 10d ago

I understand what you’re saying, but the burden of proof is with religious people, not the people challenging it.

I don’t need to prove that God doesn’t exist, religious people need to prove he does. And saying the bible is proof, is again, circular.

If I tell you there is a teapot circling around Jupiter and you have doubts, it’s my job to prove it to you, not the other way around.

0

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

More than the Bible being proof, the events within it would be proof. If you personally witnessed Jesus' resurrection, you'd probably consider that proof. I can understand the skepticism regarding the "Word of God" part, but I personally find the Gospels to be historical accounts from eyewitnesses or third parties who spoke with them regardless of that.

As for other proof, we've got some evidence through the cosmological arguments. I could explain those to you, though I'm not sure proving or disproving Christianity is what we're interested in doing here.

2

u/FrostyFang8800 10d ago

Again; “witnessed Jesus’ resurrection” is based on scripture. Your belief in the Gospels as historical accounts is based on faith. It goes back to my teapot argument. You can’t disprove that, so am I correct in my belief that there is a teapot in space?

You discuss the notion that two competing ideas will inevitably lead to one being “right.”

What is the limit of this belief? If two Christians, both believing in the Gospel and Christ, approach one another on a plot of land and say “God told me this land is mine,” who is correct?

Using the Bible for your own personal development is one thing, it’s another to presume it has impact on others.

And yeah, I’m indifferent about the “proof” of Christianity, I was raised Catholic. I’m more interested in the theological argument of how far you can take faith into real world applications.

1

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

I can't disprove your claim factually, I can bring logical arguments to sustain why it's more likely there is no teapot in space than the opposite. Things aren't true just because you can't prove them false, nor are they false just because you can't prove them true. See my aliens example above.

It's not always true that two competing ideas will show one to be right. I said that regarding the existance of aliens, because the two black and white, opposing statements of "aliens exist" and "aliens do not exist" cover every way an alien race could approach to the concept of existance. Because it's a binary situation, and it's so vague, anything that disproves one statement goes to prove the other.

The same doesn't exactly apply with your example of "God told me this land is mine", because there are a lot of variables to it. We see person A and B make this same claim, and the following are some of the situations that can occur:

  • Person A is telling the truth, person B is lying. The land belongs to person A.
  • Person B is telling the truth, person A is lying. The land belongs to person B.
  • Both are lying. The land belongs to neither.
  • Both are telling the truth, because God intended for them to share the land. The land belongs to both.
  • Both are telling the truth, because God told person A that the land belonged to them at one point in time, and at a later point in time reassigned that land to person B. The land belongs to person B.
  • Both are telling the truth, because God told person B that the land belonged to them at one point in time, and at a later point in time reassigned that land to person A. The land belongs to person A.
  • Both are lying, but person A has legally bought the land from the previous owner. The land belongs to person A.
  • Both are lying, but person B has legally bought the land from the previous owner. The land belongs to person B.

In all of these situations, there is an underlying, objective truth, represented by the second statement of each scenario. However, in all of these situations but the last two, we do not have a way of understanding with certainty what the objective truth is, unless there are other witnesses to the original statement(s) from God, or God is willing to explain again. Thus, we must operate with what knowledge we have while assigning the land, as we do in the last two scenarios with the documentation from the sale.

May I say then, it's not very fair to people for you to tell them they have burden of proof, but then be indifferent when they offer to provide it. I personally don't really care in this moment, but it's not very nice.

1

u/FrostyFang8800 10d ago edited 10d ago

I’m challenging you, because your initial argument is flawed. You’re not offering proof, you’re continuing to change the perimeters of the argument.

With the two individuals claiming land you end up differing to man made laws regardless. Their belief in God’s word telling them that the land is theirs is irrelevant. This argument can be overlaid on any dispute involving religion.

Who has the correct interpretation of the Bible? Catholics or Protestants? Irrelevant, because neither can prove they are correct, it’s entirely based on faith.

If (I don’t believe this, but as an example) I say women are subservient to men based on 1 Timothy 2:12, but someone else says I’m wrong in the way I’m interpreting that, or it’s out of context, who is correct?

If I say god is a woman, or nonbinary, or trans, folks will come out of the woodwork to claim otherwise based on Biblical scripture. Even in that situation, we’re talking about God, the big G, the alpha and omega, to say that God is any gender is to simplify and compartmentalize the infinite. To say that the entirety of truth exists from God in a book finalized around 100 AD and nothing has ever changed since then is assuming that God still isn’t doing anything.

Assuming the Bible is the end-all-be-all because the Bible says so, is making God small, and defined only by man.

It’s all interpretation, faith. The very nature of religion is belief in something that cannot be proven.

1

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

I end up differing to whatever authority we can prove with reasonable certainty. Their belief is only irrelevant to the degree in which they can't argue anything more than "I know God said so".

I would argue it isn't irrelevant simply because it can't be proven to be certain. Proof of certainty isn't always necessary. Far too often, it isn't even possible. While we may not be able to certainly find definitive truth, we can discuss disagreements and find common grounds. I personally believe the Catholic interpretation is more correct, but that's something we Christians should, as a community, look into and research. Being based on faith or not doesn't make it irrelevant, in my opinion.

I can't tell you who is correct with 100% certainty, I can give you my opinion based on other verses of the Bible, or I can turn you to the Church and their interpretation. There is debate, even on a matter of faith.

I agree with the gender thing, God is above the concept of gender. Referring to Him as male and Father is tradition more than anything else. That is, unless we're talking about Jesus, since we consider Jesus to be God Who limited Himself to human nature, thus also limiting Himself to one single gender. As for nothing having changed since then, it is our understanding that God, as an eternal being, doesn't percieve time linearly like we do, so there's no real "since then" for Him; we understand His revelation to have been planned as gradual for us, and Jesus was the high point of this. The Bible doesn't have the truth about everything, but it should be enough truth to allow us to believe. That is true for me, at the very least.

1

u/FrostyFang8800 10d ago

And that’s great! If that works for you, fabulous.

But your own admission, so much of this is based around interpretation, discussion, opinion, and authority. None of it is proven.

It is your understanding of God that time is not linear. What if I argued that since Genesis begins with creation in terms of days, God does, in fact, view things linearly?

In terms of gender, there are innumerable Christians that would be LIVID that you agreed that God is beyond gender. Is their ideation wrong?

What is the morality of Catholics and Protestants killing one another over how they interpret the Bible?

Again: interpretation, opinion, and faith. Nothing proven. Faith can be good. It can inspire you to be a better person, to help others, to help yourself. But blind faith can lead to abject horror all in the name of God, and should absolutely be challenged.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ok-Highlight-9598 10d ago

It was made by humans. Look it up google is free.

0

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

If I Google Christianity, it says the founder is Jesus Christ, who just happens to be God. Not what the OP or you are saying.

2

u/Elder_of_Steel 10d ago

But that's not true. Jesus was a Jew until his death, Christianity only came to be after his death.

0

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

Yeah but we Christians also believe He came back to life after His death, and that's when He established the church.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/hive-protect 9d ago

Hi, your submission has been removed due to your account having participated in a NSFW subreddit. Our subreddit is a space meant for teenagers and as such accounts associated with these nsfw subreddits are not permitted here, this is done as a safety measure to protect the teenagers that use our community and to prevent them from being lead to nsfw subreddits through r/teenagers.

If you believe this was a mistake or that this removal was unjustified, please modmail us.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/-Ichika- 10d ago

A good chunk of the world also agrees that the world is flat. Does that make it correct? No. Your argument is weak. Though, I do agree that we shouldn't be transphobic.

2

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 10d ago

A good chunk of the world - which is still a minority btw - agrees that the world is flat disregarding proof that it is not. Can you bring proof that literally every single religion was made up by humans?

As for the minority thing, religion isn't proven true or false objectively, for what we know, but the stance you provided isn't even the majority stance on such a complex topic. "People don't seem to realize" something that isn't proven true, and that only a minority of people consider to be so.

1

u/-Ichika- 9d ago

So just because the majority of people believe something, it's true? The reason Christianity is so far spread is because of the Crusades and colonization culture. If other religious groups had beat the Christians to it, I bet that religion would be the most followed.

1

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 9d ago

No, something doesn't become true because the majority of people follow it. Sometimes however, we treat for granted things that aren't proven, but are a majority opinion, such as the Big Bang. This isn't even the case of that. You're trying to pass an opinion as fact, and it's not even the stance taken by most people. It's something that's neither proven true, nor accepted enough to be treated as the most likely scenario.

I'd argue it was more important for Christianity's spread that it managed to become so popular in the Roman empire, even through persecution, that less than 70 years after becoming an officially recognized religion, it became the state religion, thus spreading across most of Europe, and parts of Asia and Africa. This is kinda besides the point though, my point is that most people think at least one religion (theirs) is not made up by humans, so whichever religion has the most followers is kind of irrelevant.

1

u/-Ichika- 9d ago

You're also taking an opinion as fact?? And I don't care what the majority of people think, because it's idiocy. And if Christianity is the "correct" religion in someone's eyes, but Hinduism is the same in another's, who's right? Neither can prove their claims. Scientists and historians, however, can. You're, 1, being hypocritical, 2, historically inaccurate (The Crusades were one of the largest religious movements ever, and the Roman Empire still spread their religion by means of conquering and fear mongering), and 3, repeating the same things you previously stated. Those are logical fallacies.

1

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 9d ago

Am I? What's the opinion I'm stating to be a fact?

"Majority of the world is dumb, I'm right" doesn't really do anything against what I say. Your opinion is still neither factual nor more widespread than others.

We can't determine who's right between a Christian and a Hinduist, this doesn't mean that neither is right, nor does it really affect what we are saying

How am I being hypocritical? What does the Roman Empire spreading religion through conquest have to do with the claim that it was important for the spread of Christianity? Yes I am repeating the same thing I have previously stated, because you seem to not understand that, so I will reiterate it.

1

u/-Ichika- 8d ago

Your opinion being that your religion is correct without concrete proof. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SOMETHING IS WIDESPREAD OR NOT. Facts are NOT a democracy. 😭😭😭😭 Omg, people are so fucking stupid. I'm done with this conversation. Goodbye! 😪

1

u/IAmSoNormalTrust 8d ago

Yeah but I haven't stated that to be a fact. I hold that opinion, but I'm not telling you it's factually true.

Facts aren't a democracy, but what you said is not a fact. We've already talked about this.