"You, atheists take Bible quotes out of context"

[Jesster]

Yes, the context is generally that. That is exactly my problem with it. The context doesn't improve on the meaning behind the direct passage that I posted. It's the same kind of problem that I have with people like Mother Teresa. Suffering is supposed to be a good thing? Yes, please treat me poorly. God wants me to accept that. Enslave me, beat me, and stick me up on a cross so I can be more like Jesus.

If you want me to be okay with this kind of passage, then we are never going to see eye to eye.

If don't think that one can seek to suffer and it be the same?  And I also wouldn't agree, that God wants us to suffer. The Gospel is quite the opposite. I don't go around beating myself with a stick or anything.

Thank you for your interpretation, but that's another game entirely. This is a thread about the context game. We can move onto why the other method is just as bad another day.

In the meantime, you haven't at all defended that passage to me. You've twisted it around to another angle. The passage says, and you've even admitted it yourself, that you should accept the suffering that others give you. It is supposed to be noble to just take it instead of rejecting it. Like I said before, this is exactly why I don't agree with it. This is Mother Teresa's kind of justification. It also enables slavers.

[RoadRunner79]

If don't think that one can seek to suffer and it be the same?  And I also wouldn't agree, that God wants us to suffer. The Gospel is quite the opposite. I don't go around beating myself with a stick or anything.

Thank you for your interpretation, but that's another game entirely. This is a thread about the context game. We can move onto why the other method is just as bad another day.

In the meantime, you haven't at all defended that passage to me. You've twisted it around to another angle. The passage says, and you've even admitted it yourself, that you should accept the suffering that others give you. It is supposed to be noble to just take it instead of rejecting it. Like I said before, this is exactly why I don't agree with it. This is Mother Teresa's kind of justification. It also enables slavers.

I can understand how it is difficult to accept... especially from your perspective. What Christianity has taught me however, is that it is not all about me, nor my pleasure all the time. And I find the atheistic view and subjective morality enables slavers.

[Jesster]

Thank you for your interpretation, but that's another game entirely. This is a thread about the context game. We can move onto why the other method is just as bad another day.

In the meantime, you haven't at all defended that passage to me. You've twisted it around to another angle. The passage says, and you've even admitted it yourself, that you should accept the suffering that others give you. It is supposed to be noble to just take it instead of rejecting it. Like I said before, this is exactly why I don't agree with it. This is Mother Teresa's kind of justification. It also enables slavers.

I can understand how it is difficult to accept... especially from your perspective.  What Christianity has taught me however, is that it is not all about me, nor my pleasure all the time. And I find the atheistic view and subjective morality enables slavers.

So we aren't playing the context game anymore. Good.

Now we can just plain disagree. Thank you. You are still playing games with the passage by redirecting the discussion and playing the interpretation game, but I'll let that slide since it is a different issue entirely. Don't expect me to like your view of morality though. Just wow.

[RoadRunner79]

I can understand how it is difficult to accept... especially from your perspective.  What Christianity has taught me however, is that it is not all about me, nor my pleasure all the time. And I find the atheistic view and subjective morality enables slavers.

So we aren't playing the context game anymore. Good.

Now we can just plain disagree. Thank you. You are still playing games with the passage by redirecting the discussion and playing the interpretation game, but I'll let that slide since it is a different issue entirely. Don't expect me to like your view of morality though. Just wow.

I think that part of the issue is you think it is all just a game...... but from our previous discussions, I don't think that correcting you on that or what you may think my view of morality is, would be very fruitful. Perhaps in time that may change.

[Rhondazvous]

Sure, sure. Some verses have context issues. I don't know how anyone can use the context excuse for verses like 1 Peter 2:18 or any of the other verses commanding slavery, though. The context is pretty clear there.

That is a great example of out of context.... because it is in no way commanding slavery.  Actually; on second thought context is not necessary.... it just doesn't say what you say it does.

What you're saying sounds so familiar. Like those Christians who assure me the bible doesn't say god hardened pharaoh's heart. I have no use for a book that doesn't mean what it says or say what it means. Keep doing whatcha doing, baby. A chameleon is always right, never wrong.

[Jesster]

So we aren't playing the context game anymore. Good.

Now we can just plain disagree. Thank you. You are still playing games with the passage by redirecting the discussion and playing the interpretation game, but I'll let that slide since it is a different issue entirely. Don't expect me to like your view of morality though. Just wow.

I think that part of the issue is you think it is all just a game...... but from our previous discussions, I don't think that correcting you on that or what you may think my view of morality is, would be very fruitful.  Perhaps in time that may change.

No, the issue in your last post is that you are redirecting the argument to things like your idea of atheistic morality (which isn't a thing). Your personal interpretation of the morality of the scripture doesn't really interest me either. What does interest me is what the scripture actually says, which you sharply veered away from when it inconvenienced you. When you can't stay on topic, I'm not going to keep sharing my toys with you. Go sit in your corner and think about what you've done.

[RoadRunner79]

That is a great example of out of context.... because it is in no way commanding slavery.  Actually; on second thought context is not necessary.... it just doesn't say what you say it does.

What you're saying sounds so familiar. Like those Christians who assure me the bible doesn't say god hardened pharaoh's heart. I have no use for a book that doesn't mean what it says or say what it means. Keep doing whatcha doing, baby. A chameleon is always right, never wrong.

Ok.... have your straw man.

[Minimalist]

God: #3, you're hired!

That was so funny that I had to check to make sure I'd repped you.


(I had.)

[robvalue]

Anyone who starts a sentence with, "You atheists..." needs to learn what atheism is, and that we are not a hive-mind. Seriously. Anything past this point in the sentence should be disregarded as stereotyping or projection, unless it's just a rewording of the definition. Which would be weird.

"All/most sceptics are atheists", which I'd agree with, does not imply "All atheists are sceptics."

If you mean sceptics, say sceptics. If you mean naturalists, say naturalists.

[Arkilogue]