Parts of the Bible theists on this board ignore

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

[Hide]
I want to start collecting lines of scripture that apply either to deliberate trolling by theists, or deliberate provocation by insinuations that secular people are amoral.

I've noticed a common trend in theists who visit the board: self-righteous, conceited condemnation of secularism, accusations of immoral behavior, to outright accusations of being "Godless filth."

Specifically those who are here with intent to harass, irritate, provoke, and then claim persecution or superior "moral character" when insults are returned.



Here are some to start it off:

Colossians 3:21 You fathers, do not be exasperating your children, so that they do not become downhearted.

Ephesians 6:4 And you, fathers, do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah

Proverbs 10:18 ESV The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.

Psalm 101:5 Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not endure.

Proverbs 12:16 ESV The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult.

Exodus 23:1 ESV “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."

Leviticus 19:16 ESV You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord.

Matthew 6:14-15 ESV For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 3:14 “Do not harass anybody or accuse anybody falsely, but be satisfied with your provisions.”

Psalm 36:2 For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity is found hateful.

Psalm 6:19 God abhors.....A false witness that speaketh lies, and soweth discord among the brethren.

1 John 2:4 ESV Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him

---

I'm not understanding the correlation between your cited scriptures and the mission statement of this post. For example Colossians 3:21. The only way for this scripture to be applicable to Christians being "trolls, provoking, self-righteous, conceited condemnation of secularism, accusations of immoral behavior, to outright accusations of being "Godless filth." etc. would be if you were one of the Christian member's children. Please help me out.

I'm not asking you to "call anyone out" but some specific examples would help as well.

There's also the bit in 2 Thessalonians (can't be arsed to look up chapter and verse at the moment) which says, 'And for this reason, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.'
Well, if God is willing to delude people into believing lies, then why should we trust anything that his followers say he says?
Boru

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The cause of the strong delusion is a result of a person not receiving the love of the truth. If you do not want the strong delusion, repent and receive the love of the truth.

There was a guest on TTA who quoted this, and asked since Abraham was deliberately deceived, with God already knowing the outcome, and the extent of Abraham's faith, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice his son as a "test of faith" other than a willingness to deceive?

[/hide]
A false dichotomy. God could have asked Abraham to sacrifice his son not so that He could learn the outcome, nor as a willingness to decieve, but rather so that Abraham could learn what kind of faith he has. It can also be viewed as a foreshadowing of another father giving His son over as a sacrifice for sin. Only in this case the son was sacrificed (no substitute was given as the Son is the substitute).

---

And given that, how can anyone trust anything God says? If you have children, and they have a beloved family pet that dies, what do you tell them?

The truth. That their pet died, and death is a result of sin, so Christ died on the cross, and because He was resurrected we can place our faith and trust in His work as a sacrificial attonenment, and thus have no fear of death, knowing that He has overcome it.

"Don't worry, honey, he's going to a better place." You know for a fact there is no "Puppy Heaven" or "Hamster Heaven" or a "Goldfish Heaven" in the bible, so you just lied to protect your child.

I agree there is no mention of animals being resurrected and so to tell children they are for sure in heaven is a lie (maybe they are, but we don't know). So don't tell your children lies. Are you claiming here that all Christians lie to their children about what happens to animals when they die?

How can anyone trust God isn't doing the same with the afterlife?

Please further clarify your line of reasoning here. It seems that you've stated: Christian parents lie to their children about where there pets go when they die, therefore God cannot be trusted about the afterlife. Am I understanding your argument correctly?

Hey, they ignore all those parts they think shopuldn't apply to them.

You mention the OT and then they say it's not valid anymore because it is replaced with the NT.

Then they quote from the 10 commandments and ignore you when you point ot thtat they're in the OT.

What is the purpose of the 10 commandments?

Matthew 5:17 (I think), the bit where Jesus says the law still applies.

Yes it is. Matthew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

To what law is He referring? The moral law? The ceremonial law? The theocratic law of the nation of Israel?

They don't like the fact that God thinks houses can get leprosy. They also ignore the fact that God doesn't know how to cure leprosy or if he does he's a devious lying sack of shit.

Matthew 8:1-4/Mark 1:40-45/Luke 5:12-16

[Hide]
I'm not sure if this is the type of thing you want, but Jesus specifically says that unless you are as credulous as a child, you can't go to heaven!

Matthew 18:3

I suppose a theist could turn it around and say that because we refuse to have faith like children, we won't understand, but that's honestly a shitty argument. You could use that to justify belief in Santa Clause.

---

In what way is Jesus saying we are to become like children?

---

All the many commands to sell all you have, and give to the poor.

Luke 12
32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Luke 14
33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

And more. Christians don't actually follow the commands of Jesus, never will.

---

[orangebox21]

However the bible "calls a Christian to live" is a non-issue. The problem arises when a given Christian starts using scripture to justify their hatred of my friends and family from one line in a book they don't take any other commandment seriously from, or violate every rule stipulated on avoiding damnation, and use my apistavism as the #1 reason I can't judge their lack of moral fortitude.

So your issue is that you see great hypocrisy in certain Christians? (could you please define 'apistavism' so I can fully understand you post).

Agreed. I can disagree with 95% of what you have to say, but respect your fortitude. I don't understand one part of why you think your beliefs are opposed to science, because I honestly do not think you don't understand why science does not contradict any of your beliefs, outside of biblical literalism, at all,

Often when a creationist argues agains evolution it gives the impression that he/she opposes science. This is unfortunate and generally speaking untrue. I do not oppose science, I oppose the theory of evolution. Much like any scientist who would challenge a scientific theory wouldn't be said to be opposing science, but rather it would be understood he/she opposed one specific theory.

or why abiogenesis should be taken for anything other than proof that God created man "from dirt."

That's a good point, I've never really thought of it that way. It's probably because I've never seen abiogenesis divorced from evolution. Generally speaking if we agree that the definition of abiogenesis is living material coming from non-living material I would agree that abiogenesis could be a scientific term used to describe God creating man from dust. One difference lies in where the credit is given. Creationists would say that abiogenesis is the term used to define the observation of God creating living material from non-living material (man from dust). The evolutionist would say that abiogenesis is the term used to define non-living material becoming living material through natural processes. One credits a creator, the other natural processes, or nature. Another difference is the timeline of abiogenesis and the Biblical account of creation. Given that abiogenesis (as a non-creationist scientist term) would end with a cell (and I realize there may be scientific debate over what the smallest unit of "life" is), abiogenesis (as a creation scientist term) would end with a full grown man. How are these differences reconciled?

If any part of scripture can be used to shame the nonbeliever, those same scriptures should be equally applicable to those who claim to live by them.

If I understand you correctly I would agree, scripture applies to us all. Although I hope you would agree not equally applicable in all circumstances. For example you wouldn't say that scriptures that give promises to believers would be also giving those same promises to unbelievers.

An omniscient being would have known the extent of Abraham's faith without having to test it by asking Abraham to sacrifice his child. He already knew the outcome by definition.

I agree that God did know the extent of Abraham's faith, Abraham however did not.

---

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.


In addition, any instance where a supposedly omniscient being "changed his mind" is also by definition, lying:

Exodus 32:14
14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

---

[Mudhammam]

While it's in the Koran and not the Bible, this verse gave me a big laugh when I read it yesterday.

"Do they not look at the birds poised in mid-air? Nothing holds them up except Allah. Truly there are signs here for people who believe."

[Rampant.A.I.]

However the bible "calls a Christian to live" is a non-issue. The problem arises when a given Christian starts using scripture to justify their hatred of my friends and family from one line in a book they don't take any other commandment seriously from, or violate every rule stipulated on avoiding damnation, and use my apistavism as the #1 reason I can't judge their lack of moral fortitude.

So your issue is that you see great hypocrisy in certain Christians? (could you please define 'apistavism' so I can fully understand you post).

You could say that, and they seem unfortunately to be the majority. This could be biography (I'm in a relatively conservative area), and I know plenty of good, upstanding people who happen to be religious and don't fit that stereotype.
Apistevism is someone who lacks religious faith.

Agreed. I can disagree with 95% of what you have to say, but respect your fortitude. I don't understand one part of why you think your beliefs are opposed to science, because I honestly do not think you don't understand why science does not contradict any of your beliefs, outside of biblical literalism, at all,

Often when a creationist argues agains evolution it gives the impression that he/she opposes science. This is unfortunate and generally speaking untrue. I do not oppose science, I oppose the theory of evolution. Much like any scientist who would challenge a scientific theory wouldn't be said to be opposing science, but rather it would be understood he/she opposed one specific theory.

or why abiogenesis should be taken for anything other than proof that God created man "from dirt."

That's a good point, I've never really thought of it that way. It's probably because I've never seen abiogenesis divorced from evolution. Generally speaking if we agree that the definition of abiogenesis is living material coming from non-living material I would agree that abiogenesis could be a scientific term used to describe God creating man from dust. One difference lies in where the credit is given. Creationists would say that abiogenesis is the term used to define the observation of God creating living material from non-living material (man from dust). The evolutionist would say that abiogenesis is the term used to define non-living material becoming living material through natural processes. One credits a creator, the other natural processes, or nature. Another difference is the timeline of abiogenesis and the Biblical account of creation. Given that abiogenesis (as a non-creationist scientist term) would end with a cell (and I realize there may be scientific debate over what the smallest unit of "life" is), abiogenesis (as a creation scientist term) would end with a full grown man. How are these differences reconciled?

Well, it is out of order from biblical Genesis, depending which of two stories the biblical literalist follows, hopefully with the knowledge that Gensis was written 130 years after Christ.

Abiogenesis is a relatively new theory, and separate from evolution, which only deals with speculation and adaptation of existing life.

There's really no reason to separate origin science from religion; Francis Collins, the devout evangelical Christian founder of the Human Genome Project views science as a way to view the method of God's creation of life.

If any part of scripture can be used to shame the nonbeliever, those same scriptures should be equally applicable to those who claim to live by them.

If I understand you correctly I would agree, scripture applies to us all. Although I hope you would agree not equally applicable in all circumstances. For example you wouldn't say that scriptures that give promises to believers would be also giving those same promises to unbelievers.

It's a distinct doctrinal difference. Most religions teach believers will have special benefits not afforded to nonbelievers. It's intended to be derisive, and separate a "chosen group" from the general population.

An omniscient being would have known the extent of Abraham's faith without having to test it by asking Abraham to sacrifice his child. He already knew the outcome by definition.

I agree that God did know the extent of Abraham's faith, Abraham however did not.

And if you're reading that passage as God intending to teach Abraham about the extent of his faith, while scaring the shit out of his son, that's a perfectly valid reading.

---

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.


In addition, any instance where a supposedly omniscient being "changed his mind" is also by definition, lying:

Exodus 32:14
14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

---