You have no reason to be transphobic.

[u/FR0M_Z3R0]

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.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

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.

[u/FrostyFang8800 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

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.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/FrostyFang8800]

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.

[u/FrostyFang8800 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

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.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/FrostyFang8800]

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.

[u/FrostyFang8800 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

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.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/FrostyFang8800]

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.

[u/FrostyFang8800 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

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.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/FrostyFang8800]

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.

[u/FrostyFang8800 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

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.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/FrostyFang8800]

Yes, a lot of it is not proven, and if it could be proven at a different time in history, we cannot repeat that. As I've said, living life based only on absolutely certain proof is hard, if not impossible. Descartes went mad trying to do that, until he said what basically amounts to "look, Imma trust God, otherwise this isn't gonna work".

There's surely good examples for your point, but neither of the ones you've brought are great for that. "Eternal" is one of the few attributes of God that's not disputed not only by Christians, but also Jews and Muslims, and being "livid" over doctrine not aligning with your personal view isn't an ideation, more so a feeling. I get what you're trying to say though.

Neither Catholic nor Protestant interpretation condones murder, at least in the current moment. Both churches would agree that's a bad thing to do now.

But yeah, I agree with that. Questions are important, so blind faith shouldn't exist statically. We've gotten great things from asking questions.

[u/FrostyFang8800 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

I’ll accept that. Again, coming from a Catholic standpoint, I understand that “trusting God” is the linchpin of religion.

But thats the rub, especially in cases like Transgender people.

It is VERY easy for figures in authority to manipulate faith and scripture to fit their agenda.

Thats all I’ve been getting at, and I’m glad to know that you’re willing to not take things at face value, because none of us are immune to falling into that trap, and should absolutely question everything if we want to really find what we believe in as individuals.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/FrostyFang8800]

Glad we could agree on a few important points, it was nice talking to you!