Religious people are disingenuous by nature
Everything inconvenient is a metaphor, everything they like is the literal word of god and cannot be questioned
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025
806 points (99.0% liked)
Atheist Memes
6926 readers
3 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Those people don't believe in anything, they're just dishonest about it, lol.
They just want divine justification to hate the people they fear
load more comments
(4 replies)
For the record... when Jesus was talking about "love one another' or "love your neighbor as yourself" and similar, it wasn't the all-encompassing "one another" we think of today. He taught adherence and obedience to the Law of Moses, and he certainly wasn't talking about loving one's slaves. (who were property.)
or unruly children that talked back to their parents. (Those... he was all for having them stoned.)
Jesus wasn't a shining example of goodness, but he's less awful than certain of his modern followers.
He was a jew, and wanted jewish bullshit "laws" followed
People like to write him up as a someone who would pass for a Bernie Sanders with a beard, but it's bullshit
Especially because there's not a shred of evidence that the magic stick-zombie even existed
Yup.
actually, in the NT, when he was beefing with the pharisees, it was because they had gone too lax, not because they were legalistic. Like when the pharisees came and bitched about not ritually washing their hands before eating... he literally called them out for not stoning kids. (which was, IIRC a law in Deuteronomy.)
The pharisees followed the "tradition of the elders" that kind of sorta added some things (like ritual hand washing,) and kinda sorta glossed over some things (Stoning kids that talked back.)
and the 'good' bits people like...? Yeah. that wasn't an original thing either. That time and place there were two movements going on: "Hey be nice" and... basically... the fundamentalism groupies going 'back' to the written law of moses.
Jesus literally had more to say about paying taxes than slavery. Jesus would have been that asshole saying "if you just comply, they won't kill you."
And all that is assuming he actually existed. (or wasn't legendarized. like King Arthur, or Charlemagne an his pallies.)
Even if he did exist, there's exactly zero reason to believe he actually said anything he's supposed to have said. Or even had a "ministry." We need not mention the miracles. (well, I am going to mention that there was a reason that he couldn't do them in his hometown: they knew he was full of shit.)
The point I'm making, though, is even if you just accept it all at face value, his morals were fairly awful. Which is why you get lots of people who follow him and have fairly awful morals themselves.
I have an image in my mind of an orange Jesus grifting and taking bribes to put certain things into the religion for his friends. I have never seen any evidence Jesus actually existed and isn't an just an ancient allegory.
if- and yes that's a very big if- we accept that Jesus had some type of "ministry" he was probably on the level of a proverbial traveling snake oil saleman, selling fake miracles and shit. The iron being, that the reason snake oil salesmen were a thing was because snake oil did have some medicinal properties. Which is more than can be said for random exorcisms and stuffing spit-daubed mud in the eyes.
The gospels were written so far away from where it all supposedly happened that no one was going to go back and check. which is why they were working off the septuagint for the gospels of mathew and luke. and none of the gospels were written by the people they're attributed to, they're all anonymous.
one of the more fun examples of an insertion is the whole virgin birth thing. (Isaiah 7:14, when properly translated says nothing about a virgin giving birth. The word used was 'Almah', which was translated into the septuagint as 'parthenos'. Parthenos basically also meant young woman, but then in christian literature came to mean a virgin, specifically. A mistake they would have caught had they been reading the scriptures in the original language.
Literally every single "and this was to fulfill that" sort of prophecy they claim is like that. It's either not a prophecy, or so obviously not about jesus that it's laughable. (The actual prophecy in Isaiah 7 was about the enemies of King Ahaz, three kingdoms including Israel, who were allies against Ahaz. God was promising to wipe them out. the kid only served as a sort of clock.)
This is the great thing about Christianity.
Their holy book is so vague and so contradictory (even the four gospels don't agree on details) that you can pick and choose whatever the heck you want to justify your worldview. It's a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' religion.
They don't love Jesus, they love their perception of Jesus
A hateful and exclusive white jesus?
The Bible is a wonderful book; you can prove anything you want with it.
-Mark Twain
load more comments
(1 replies)
And before Christianity, the old testament and Judaism was the same way. It's almost like all these religions purposely steal whatever local belief a particular culture holds at the time, and then twists it however they can to benefit those in positions of power.
Remember jesus's mom was a virgin, that means jesus had no Y chromosome.
Jesus was born female and lived her life as a man.
God, despite being male presenting identifies as non-binary.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They don't "follow the bible" so much as they "use the Bible to justify their shitty worldview"
If you want to get on that nerd shit, they don't bother to correctly translate the bible. The singular instance of condemnation of homosexuality is better translated as a condemnation of pederasty. And we've already demonstrated that Christian church leaders have no problem with this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Blue checkmarks fund Nazis!
Agreed. I think that's the stage we're at. It's not occult or shocking anymore.
"Swastika armbands support Nazis!"
"Well, yeah, man, that's why I'm wearing it."
These people are openly spouting the same rhetoric as the Nazi party and vehemently oppose criticism of it. They can't be shamed this way.
this is why it should be perfectly legal to punch a nazis in the face.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
They won't necessarily say it, but they don't consider 'THEM QUEERS' people. Not as long as almighty god still backs the boys in blue and the NRA.
Also, when he said to love your neighbor as you love yourself, he wasn’t just talking about feelings or tone of voice. He was talking about the way you treat them. He insisted that people are required to provide care for others at the same level you care you provide for yourself. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, friendship, you are responsible for all those things no less than your own.
And who is your neighbor? He answered that, too. The people you hate. Those of other foreign places and religions. All of them. The out-groups. And however you treat them, no matter how little you think of them, that god they claim to believe in says he takes it very personally.
Personally, I’m a fan of that radical leftist Jesus guy. It’s a shame that “Christians” are the opposite of everything he demanded and stood for.
Yeah.
I don't get obsessing over a single quote, only to miss the theme the book obsessively hammers in, which is what you said.
"I can love my fellow man, But I'm damned if I'll love yours"
Andrew eldritch - 'I Was Wrong'
Beloved
Let us love one another
For love is of god and everyone who loves
Is born of god
And knows god
He who doesn’t love
Doesn’t know god for god is love
Beloved
Let us love one another
Amen
Jesus didn't say such a thing, it was John, Rom, Thess, Peter, John again. (BTW who are Rom and Thess)?
Rom is a Ferengi in Star Trek, the brother of Quark.
rom is likely the Romans and thess is likely Thessalonians
John would be quoting Jesus though, no?
Romans and Thessalonias, two parishes Paul wrote letters to; the "books" comprised of those letters are named after the respective parish.
Well, lets take it the other way.
Where in the bible does Jesus say to hate LGBTQ+ people?
I'm not doing the work for you, but it very clearly says if a man lies with another man like they do with a woman they should be stoned to death.
It's in the old testament, in Hebrew. Saying if a man lays with a male.. which my favorite part of that argument goes back to every Catholic/ Christian not being saved by God and their souls eternally left behind.. which is what one might call eternal damnation.
So they say. "Yeah we don't like gays, or anybody who believes Jesus is God's son".
Yeah let's scrap the part about all of us being eternally damned, and let's leave in the part about stoning people different than us.
Oh and, let's make up pergatory and hell so we can scare more people and make more money
Be gay - get high. Got it thx
load more comments
(9 replies)
Except not literally, then you kill them for adultery.
Let's remember that it's a different kind of love, a love where eternal suffering is considered appropriate, and even just, and that when a Christian says they are excited about Jesus's return, that means that He will return at the head of a Holy Army and they will murder every non-Christian.
The lake of blood will be 200 miles wide, up to a horse's bridle!
So, they "love" you, but, yeah.
The bible is so two faced and full of contradictions. Like this:
Psalm 139:21–22 “Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.”
The love one another stuff is specifically and basically exclusively a feature of the New Testament, as are all of the passages listed here. Old Testament God was much more pro religion-based genocide and enslavement. But most Christians will tell you that the New Testament/Jesus revised the old biblical laws and messages. So any "good" Christian should be leaning on it for moral guidance, instead of the books that promote vengeance, slavery, incest, rape, murder, maiming/mutilation, etc.
Not according to jebus!
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Even this one?
2 kings chapter 2 verse 23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
This one too:
Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
There she lusted after her lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
It's actually exactly this quote that they claim supports the argument that the coming of Jesus overrides the old laws. Not that they are eliminated, but that they are "fulfilled" by/through him. This is often interpreted to mean that where he specifies, they are changed or replaced through him. Such as declaring all foods clean, change from the vengeful "eye for an eye" to the pacifist "turn the other cheek", expanded adultery to include lustful thoughts, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this interpretation because it's all fiction anyway. But that is the common Canon.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›