Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Sheed1980]

If the Bible is entirely true, what is the biblical justification for ignoring the parts YOU don't like ??

And if you're really imbued and overfilling with His spirit, why the resistance and defensiveness in regards to not embracing the totality of Holy Scripture ??


If you know better than God as to what is and is relevant in the Bible, what do we need God for, we can just follow you??

First, who's ignoring what? I didn't say anything remotely close to ignore. Second, who is defensive? Are you imagining another conversation??

I am a Muslim who gets in debates with Christians over their Bible. They should know their entire Bible isn't the total truth. In their own holy scripture Jeremiah 8:8 clearly says: "How can you say we are wise and have the law of the Lord when the lying pens of the scribes have FALSIFIED it?" This clearly states human beings have added things to God's original revelation of words of their own and then said it is the word of God

[SteveII]

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

So are you saying that the parable of the Good Samaritan was confusing? Did slavery go on in Christian homes following Jesus? I don't know. Do you have sources?

Slaves obey your masters goes right along with the Beatitudes (Mat 5). Read them.

[SteveII]

First, welcome to the forum and thank you for the thoughtful comment. Why do you use "xtians"?

I found this link this morning after searching for Jewish thought on the subject. I found it interesting. It's long but if you really are interested in the subject...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...e-Jews.htm

Thanks for the link. It seems to me that what it boils down to if that

1. If your god just told people straight up that certain actions were wrong, people wouldn't be truly 'good' because people would only be doing 'good' because they were told to do, not because they were truly 'good'.
2. By not explicitly saying that slavery is wrong, your god has given people the chance to 'learn' for themselves that slavery is wrong.

So essentially people are 'good' despite the babble, and not because of it?

I use xtians for two reasons, one because it saves key depressions, and two because I think the term 'cross'tians is apt, giving that my view is that the majority of xtians are cross/irritated/angry that the whole world does not share their beliefs and we object to having their particular brand of religion shoved in our faces. And I use 'babble' because IMO that is all the bible contains - meaningless nonsense.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Great. another one that can't have a respectful discussion. Ugh.

[GrandizerII]

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

So are you saying that the parable of the Good Samaritan was confusing? Did slavery go on in Christian homes? Do you have sources?

Slaves obey your masters goes right along with the Beatitudes (Mat 5). Read them.

Says your interpretation. Nowhere in the Beatitudes does it explicitly or literally state don't own slaves.

[vorlon13]

The parable of the Samaritan is an interesting thing.

Read the bible verses, and no where is the Samaritan described as 'good'.

(good might occur as a header, however, and it seems the parable is ALWAYS referred to using that word)

And then realize, adding that word 'good' to the actual wording of the parable CHANGES THE MEANING.

If he is a 'good' Samaritan, why wouldn't he help out ??


If he is an ordinary, run of the mill average Samaritan, then you see the point of the parable. And that point is utterly lost when the word 'good' is invariably associated with that Samaritan.


(Isaac Asimov did an essay on this topic, and I heartily concur with his, unfortunately, nearly unique take on this parable)

[SteveII]

So are you saying that the parable of the Good Samaritan was confusing? Did slavery go on in Christian homes? Do you have sources?

Slaves obey your masters goes right along with the Beatitudes (Mat 5). Read them.

Says your interpretation. Nowhere in the Beatitudes does it explicitly or literally state don't own slaves.

That is nowhere near what I said. You didn't answer about the parable. You didn't answer about me questioning your assumption that people did not understand Jesus regarding "your neighbor". 

You only mention the sentence where I was explaining that slaves obeying masters is in line with all the other teachings. I'll paste them. Tell me where slaves obeying your masters does not fit with the overall message. 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

Blessed are they who mourn, 
for they shall be comforted. 

Blessed are the meek, 
for they shall inherit the earth. 

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, 
for they shall be satisfied. 

Blessed are the merciful, 
for they shall obtain mercy. 

Blessed are the pure of heart, 
for they shall see God. 

Blessed are the peacemakers, 
for they shall be called children of God. 

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, 
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

[ukatheist]

Great. another one that can't have a respectful discussion. Ugh.

How was I disrespectful? You provided a link to some material, I read it, and summarised what I interpreted it to mean. You asked why I used the term xtians and I explained why, with further explanation about why I used the term babble, explicitly saying that they were my opinions only. Would you prefer I lied, 'cause that is what I consider being disrespectful.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

[SteveII]

Because not "everyone" believed that "everyone" was their neighbor, or even equal as a human being.  Jesus obviously was not very clear on this because slavery went on for centuries, and as pointed out before, he tells slaves to obey their masters, which is not in line with "everybody should love everybody".

The Bible just simply isn't explicitly clear on slavery being wrong. But putting that aside, it's not like we even have clear unambiguous access to all of God's moral rules, assuming God exists. So even if divine morality exists, there is no evidence that it is fully and readily available and that Christians or others are going by the rules of such morality rather than by the same or similar standards everyone else is going by.

If divine morals exist, why wouldn't we know them through the teachings of Jesus?

[GrandizerII]

Says your interpretation. Nowhere in the Beatitudes does it explicitly or literally state don't own slaves.

That is nowhere near what I said. You didn't answer about the parable. You didn't answer about me questioning your assumption that people did not understand Jesus regarding "your neighbor". 

You  only mention the sentence where I was explaining that slaves obeying masters is in line with all the other teachings. I'll paste them. Tell me where slaves obeying your masters does not fit with the overall message. 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

Blessed are they who mourn, 
for they shall be comforted. 

Blessed are the meek, 
for they shall inherit the earth. 

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, 
for they shall be satisfied. 

Blessed are the merciful, 
for they shall obtain mercy. 

Blessed are the pure of heart, 
for they shall see God. 

Blessed are the peacemakers, 
for they shall be called children of God. 

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, 
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Again, interpretation. Where does it explicitly state this applies to slaves as well?

And where does it explicitly state that Jesus had slaves in mind when lecturing on neighbors?

The answer is nowhere. You, probably with guidance from whatever group you specifically adhere to, make that interpretation.

[GrandizerII]

The Bible just simply isn't explicitly clear on slavery being wrong. But putting that aside, it's not like we even have clear unambiguous access to all of God's moral rules, assuming God exists. So even if divine morality exists, there is no evidence that it is fully and readily available and that Christians or others are going by the rules of such morality rather than by the same or similar standards everyone else is going by.

If divine morals exist, why wouldn't we know them through the teachings of Jesus?

Because they're often vague and unclear, and don't sufficiently cover everything to do with morals.