Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[RetiredArmy]

Since many of you brought up slavery, I thought this article was a good perspective:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Apologist bullshit.  Slavery then isn't slavery now blah blah blah.  Owning another human-f'ing-being is f'ing wrong, no matter when or by whatever gods' decree. Exodus 21, the whole thing, gives permission to own flesh, period.

[SteveII]

---

Since it is quite clear you think you understand the meaning, what do you think "fulfill" means?

I think that Jesus meant that he had come to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and thus validate the law, rather than refuting the law and replacing it with a new doctrine.

Nope. His death fulfilled the requirements of the law. The law could never ever be fully followed and was therefore a reminder that we do not measure up to God (never righteous before God). His death provided a way that we could be righteous before God. Heaven and earth did not pass away before it was fulfilled (his death).

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book requires the re-interpretation of folks like Steve, to make sense to folks like Steve. That's the problem with magic book (and folks like Steve). Meanwhile, god is still on the page, un-miraculously doing nothing, nowhere.

A law that can't be followed is a shitty law, and a person who uses law for no purpose other than to remind everyone of how disappointing they are to him is a shitty lawmaker.

[Veritas_Vincit]

---

I think that Jesus meant that he had come to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and thus validate the law, rather than refuting the law and replacing it with a new doctrine.

Nope. His death fulfilled the requirements of the law. The law could never ever be fully followed and was therefore a reminder that we do not measure up to God (never righteous before God). His death provided a way that we could be righteous before God. Heaven and earth did not pass away before it was fulfilled (his death).

Steve I have faith in you that you have enough sense between your ears to look at what you have just written about 'the Law' and notice how absurd it is, how bizare and pointlessly nonsensical this law that the Biblical God has supposedly created, how completely detached it is from any sane notion of morality or righteousness. I know that you have the capacity to consider the contradictions in this contrived load of codswallop to potentially extricate yourself from its confusing clutches. Maybe Jesus did mean he was there to be a human sacrifice, so stop - think what you have just admitted, that your religion is a cult of humam sacrifice. You worship a God who demands that people be executed in order to achieve vicarious redemption and forgiveness. This is happening so far out from the realms of moral accountability, the idea that you can be forgiven and absolved of guilt by a human sacrifice. This is nonsensical, illogical, unethical, unthinkable except for in the minds of backward barbaric Bronze Age goat herders who had a world view so narrow they would make Miss Teen Arizona from 2007 look like Noam Chompsky. Check out the YouTube clip if you haven't seen it, it's hilarious. I pay you the compliment of assuming you don't really, deep down, believe this ancient tribal mythology to be in any way morally acceptable, let alone morally admirable or authoritative.

[brewer]

Can we cherry pick the Silmarillion next? I at least enjoy sections of that particular fantasy delusion.

[SteveII]

Since many of you brought up slavery, I thought this article was a good perspective:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Apologist bullshit.  Slavery then isn't slavery now blah blah blah.  Owning another human-f'ing-being is f'ing wrong, no matter when or by whatever gods' decree. Exodus 21, the whole thing, gives permission to own flesh, period.

You're right. It would have been better to let poor people starve, take away all their options. It would have also been better to kill people left over after a battle. Women, children. Perhaps just leave them at the edge of a battle field to fend for themselves. The world was a very harsh place back then. Your response is emotional rather than logical.

[RetiredArmy]

So you are making a case that owning a person, having a slave, can be logically good?

---

Exchange of work for sustenance is one thing. Saying one person owns the other in that situation is slavery.

[The Grand Nudger]

I love it, god says "go kill those assholes and take their daughters as sex slaves" and a modern day christian interprets that as a mercy, right before implying that there might be something wrong with mercy anyway.

These are the fruits of the tree.

[RetiredArmy]

SteveII I'm having a hard time not calling you a fuck-tard. I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

[SteveII]

Nope. His death fulfilled the requirements of the law. The law could never ever be fully followed and was therefore a reminder that we do not measure up to God (never righteous before God). His death provided a way that we could be righteous before God. Heaven and earth did not pass away before it was fulfilled (his death).

Steve I have faith in you that you have enough sense between your ears to look at what you have just written about 'the Law' and notice how absurd it is, how bizare and pointlessly nonsensical this law that the Biblical God has supposedly created, how completely detached it is from any sane notion of morality or righteousness. I know that you have the capacity to consider the contradictions in this contrived load of codswallop to potentially extricate yourself from its confusing clutches. Maybe Jesus did mean he was there to be a human sacrifice, so stop - think what you have just admitted, that your religion is a cult of humam sacrifice. You worship a God who demands that people be executed in order to achieve vicarious redemption and forgiveness. This is happening so far out from the realms of moral accountability, the idea that you can be forgiven and absolved of guilt by a human sacrifice. This is nonsensical, illogical, unethical, unthinkable except for in the minds of backward barbaric Bronze Age goat herders who had a world view so narrow they would make Miss Teen Arizona from 2007 look like Noam Chompsky. Check out the YouTube clip if you haven't seen it, it's hilarious. I pay you the compliment of assuming you don't really, deep down, believe this ancient tribal mythology to be in any way morally acceptable, let alone morally admirable or authoritative.

This tells me you know nothing of which you whine about and judge with scorn. Sorry. Don't want to waste my time having to explain everything just to have you ignore the explanation and move on to the next objection you were able to google.