Texas State Rep. James Talarico using biblical scripture to tear down conservative Christian arguments
This is why it’s really handy to be well versed in the Bible – it’s very easy to throw their shit right back in their face. Know their bible better than they do.
Matthew 5:17-9 says that all old testament laws still apply
Matthew 6:5 says not to pray in public or flaunt your religion.
Matthew 19:24 says that no Christian should have any disposable income.
Timothy 2:12 says that Christian women may not proselytize
Peter 2:18 says The Christ himself condones slavery
Psalm 137:9 says that those who kill babies in the name of the Lord are glorified for they are exterminating the next generation of “Our Enemies”
There are a ton more. I’ll add as I remember them.
Numbers 5:11-31 is the only time that the entirety of The Bible or The Apocrypha even mention abortion. Those verses tell you how to perform an abortion. (In possibly the worst way, and for the worst reasons imaginable) This literally makes The Bible Pro-Choice.
I’m intentionally ignoring the incest and lots of logical holes in the Old Testament as much as I can, because I want to poke holes in what these modern “Christians” believe.
Edit 3: Oh! Oh! This shit contains so many verses to deploy against evangelicals. http://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/
I’m sure the answer would be: “Yeah but they couldn’t have foreseen how the modern world works 2000 years ago. We need to adapt to the ti… Hang on did you say we can have slaves again?”
How could they have know that 250 years later, we’d have miniature Gatling guns that fit in a pocket and can be reloaded in seconds when they wrote the second amendment.
So their all-powerful, all-seeing god couldn’t foresee the future when putting down his official laws?
The problem with this is that would require them to respect rational thought from the start, which we know isn’t the case.
I was arguing about locking immigrates in cages and separating families with a religious person and told them the verse
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.
He then told me that was a mistranslation. That foreigner really meant someone from the next town over, but not from another country.
Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”
Ah yes, the town of Egypt. Just a short couple of hours by horse.
40 years of wandering later
Well, it’s not like they had GPS…
Know their bible better than they do.
They interpret it selectively, just like their version of the Constitution that begins and ends with the Second Amendment.
This is the problem. It doesn’t matter. For every interpretation one may have, someone else has an interpretation somewhere else in the scriptures that says the exact opposite according to them. The book itself is such a giant catchall for any motive one may have it’s almost comical at this point. Virtually anyone can use it as evidence of support for or against just about anything.
And their version of the Second Amendment is four words long.
If you say guns kill people one more time, I will shoot you with a gun, and you will, coincidentally, die.
<3 from the Welcome to Nightvale NRA
Right to ursine appendages
Right on!
From the article I’m not seeing what part of the bible they actually used against them. What did I miss?
Matthew 6:5-6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
It’s the foundation of his argument that Christians shouldn’t impose religion upon others but should lead by example.
In the video, he talks about why he considers the bill antithetical to Christian beliefs and quotes Mathew 6:5 to bring his point home.
Probably Ezekiel 23:20
More knowledge is always a good thing but religious texts can and are twisted to suit an agenda all the time. We can’t go back and ask the authors for clarification so we’re left arguing about what a person believes the text means.
That just leads to another debate of who wrote the damn thing.
Hint: It wasn’t God or Jesus, but it won’t stop them from guessing those two first.
The earliest text in the New Testament was written around 50 years after Christ’s death. There’s no definitive account of his life because the accounts in the gospels are sometimes contradictory. It’s messy, almost like it was written by a bunch of people recounting stories they heard rather than it being the literal word of God.
But they (the right) usually quote it by removing all context and by only using snippets of the text so there’s no interpretation required, in which case it’s very easy to retort by using the same tactic or by quoting the whole passage.
Heck, just telling them that “it’s written all over the place in the Bible that only God has the ability to judge” takes care of most of their message.
True, but if you bring facts, logic, and citations to a discussion about belief and faith then all it takes is, “that’s not the interpretation I choose to believe” to end the conversation.
Conservatives aren’t Christian. They just pretend to be so they can manipulate each other.
They want to expand that to manipulate everyone.
They never have an answer when someone uses the book they’ve never actually read against them. All she could do was stand there and stutter.
Source article, rather than a re-host by yahoo: https://www.pride.com/politics/james-talarico-ten-commandments
Good, but it shouldn’t have even gotten that far.
What do you call people who don’t follow the Bible?
Answer - Christians
Jesus was a poor, brown skinned, socialist, Middle-Eastern, Jewish, pacifist hippie who advocated for paying taxes, supporting the poor, forgiving criminals, giving your money away to charity, and practicing nonviolence all while hanging out with a bunch of other men and prostitutes.
If the second coming happened today Christians would crucify him again before the weekend was over.
No he wasn’t. He didn’t exist.
Most people assume he did and there’s evidence for it, but there really isn’t. It’s just an assumption that’s convenient for Christians to push. There actually is almost no historical evidence for it.
You’re currently downvoted because this assumption has been pushed very hard, and it’s not totally unfounded. I have no more reason to trust it than I do to trust that Santa was real. There’s far too much desire to create evidence for me to bother with it. I don’t believe he wasn’t real either. I just don’t entertain either idea. It doesn’t change anything whichever is true. He wasn’t the son of God regardless.
“Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1][7][8][note 1] Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century.”
What do you call people who have actually read the Bible?
Atheists.
Gotta love when an articpe describes something in the title, and then doesn’t actually put the details of that thing in the article. The only mention of the bible in the article is “After quoting from the bible, the Democratic lawmaker said…”
Anyone know what the actual quote was?
Matthew 6:5 about praying in secret. Also some references to faith without works is dead and to feed the hungry and clothe the naked in reference to why there is a proposal to put the commandments in classrooms but not to do what Jesus actually calls Christians to do.
I thought republican Christians did not believe in the bible any more. It’s too woke
They’re fine with the Old Testament, it’s got plenty of treachery, rape, slavery and fraud cheered on by God, mixed in with smiting and destroying things that disagree with you.
They have a problem with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, which is all a bit too “someone was different to me so I made friends with them and we ate together”.
rape, slavery
It draws an odd moral line here where a virgin prisoner of war can basically be raped for the rest of her life as a “wife” but the act of doing so makes it so the “husband” cannot sell her into slavery after leaving her.
I think the best way of summing up biblical ethics is “there’s animal rights but women are the animals”
I thought that was the main difference between Christians and Jews though
Jewish tradition celebrates reason and doesn’t have the hell Christians do (or so I’m told).
That was awesome. I’m not anti Christian, I’m very pro even field though. The call out of hypocracy in a way that was from the source was art.
Sadly it usually doesn’t work. These “Christian” Republicans wouldn’t have any faith if they didn’t have bad faith. They don’t care what the book they supposedly follow says. They just use it as a weapon for those who supposedly believe it but have never read it for themselves.
Ahh yes I too remember the well known and oft quoted bible passage “and then the Lord said unto him, ‘place a picture of your dingus on the wall in every room’ and then after he had said it, he laughed unto himself, saying ‘hehe I wonder if they’ll actually do it’ “
You must be referring to https://biblehub.com/niv/ezekiel/23.htm
Epic
Don’t y’all know it doesn’t count if it happens in the new testament
Isn’t Jesus from the new testament?
That is what he is saying. To them Jesus doesn’t count. He’s much too nice to others. Really, they don’t care about the Bible except as a tool to abuse others so the argument in the article will not have any influence on christofacist thinking.
