Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2013, 10:32 AM
Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
Hello,
I was thankfully raised by heathens and have little bible knowledge. I am reading now, and it's pure MISERY. I feel so far behind everyone here. So you'd think I would know better than to engage in "conversations" with fucktards. Nope! Can't help it - misogyny and homophobia make me furious.

When they tell me "Oh that's the old testament - those laws were abolished." I cite things like, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17. But they all seem to say I'm taking it out of context at some point. Is this a valid argument? How do you handle this one? In large part, the thing is disjointed snippets that don't seem to be a complete story.

THANKS!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ArtMinx's post
10-07-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 10:32 AM)ArtMinx Wrote:  Hello,
I was thankfully raised by heathens and have little bible knowledge. I am reading now, and it's pure MISERY. I feel so far behind everyone here. So you'd think I would know better than to engage in "conversations" with fucktards. Nope! Can't help it - misogyny and homophobia make me furious.

When they tell me "Oh that's the old testament - those laws were abolished." I cite things like, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17. But they all seem to say I'm taking it out of context at some point. Is this a valid argument? How do you handle this one? In large part, the thing is disjointed snippets that don't seem to be a complete story.

THANKS!!!

No it's their argument that is cherry picking the bible and taking things out of context. Jesus is quoted several times as saying he came not to replace the law but to fulfill it. It was St. Paul of Tarsus that was removing the original law so gentiles could join, circumcision was kind of a large obstacle to mass appeal in the Roman world. So anytime they claim that they don't need to follow the old testament ask them if they are actual following Paulianity because Jesus never said any such thing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
10-07-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
I treat most of these conversations as something fun to do. I don't expect to change their minds. I enjoy twisting tails especially with those theists that hate women and gays.

I find most will go to the NT voids the OT (expect when it doesn't) stance and then the get to "you're taking it out of context". If you get an orginal argument please share it with us. Smile

Welcome aboard!

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
10-07-2013, 10:47 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
The problem is not that those dreadful laws are now abolished by the new covenant/new testament. The problem is that those dreadful laws were ever God's in the first place! How can they be okay with the notion that God USED to be a tyrannical monster who executed people for minor, petty offenses? He's changed? No He hasn't! He's only exchanged his promise of earthly monstrous overreaction for a promise of eternal monstrous overreaction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
10-07-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 10:39 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I find most will go to the NT voids the OT (expect when it doesn't)

Chuckle!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ArtMinx's post
10-07-2013, 11:02 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 10:32 AM)ArtMinx Wrote:  Hello,
I was thankfully raised by heathens and have little bible knowledge. I am reading now, and it's pure MISERY. I feel so far behind everyone here. So you'd think I would know better than to engage in "conversations" with fucktards. Nope! Can't help it - misogyny and homophobia make me furious.

When they tell me "Oh that's the old testament - those laws were abolished." I cite things like, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17. But they all seem to say I'm taking it out of context at some point. Is this a valid argument? How do you handle this one? In large part, the thing is disjointed snippets that don't seem to be a complete story.

THANKS!!!

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17-18

If they say you took it out of context, ask them to explain how its context lends any different interpretation. They'll probably start babbling nonsense syllables at that point because they didn't expect to have to prove their claim.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
10-07-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
Besides the above, there are many others :

""Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."[1 Cor. 14:34–35]

Clearly he used it when it was convenient, and said they were free from it when it served his purpose.

For centuries the members of the "Way" cult were practicing Jews.
As late as 400 CE St. John Chrysostom was yelling at them to stop going to the synagogue, (see his "Christmas sermon"). They thought they were compelled to keep the "old law".

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it".

Ask them why anyone must keep the "10 commandments" if they are free of the old law.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 11:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Besides the above, there are many others :

""Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."[1 Cor. 14:34–35]

Clearly he used it when it was convenient, and said they were free from it when it served his purpose.

For centuries the members of the "Way" cult were practicing Jews.
As late as 400 CE St. John Chrysostom was yelling at them to stop going to the synagogue, (see his "Christmas sermon"). They thought they were compelled to keep the "old law".

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it".

Ask them why anyone must keep the "10 commandments" if they are free of the old law.

Ha ha - yeah, if the 10 commandments are abolished then the creation story and that fucking stupid Eve woman that had to go and ruin everything. Bitches deserve to suffer (we bleed for her sins you know). I think I read a post on FB where one of them was trying to say that the word silent meant something other than speaking in "those times" with regard to "Women should remain silent in the churches". Like what... not belching? Hilarious.
Thanks to all for the great replies!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ArtMinx's post
10-07-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
Keep in mind that most Xians aren't Bible scholars in any way, shape, or form. The vast majority have never read the bible all the way through, and what Bible reading they do is often confined to the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs, often within some sort of devotional guide with a couple of verses (or chapters, if ambitious) and some commentary.

When they come up with statements like "the OT laws have been abolished," they are usually parroting a pastoral sermon or small-group discussion. You'd be surprised at how much Xian "knowledge" is based off of groupthink like this...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atheist_pilgrim's post
10-07-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
You might actually be taking it out of context, but I doubt the Christians know how you are taking it out of context. I'll elaborate if you want me to, if not, no big deal.

Also, the stuff Bucky mentioned has a legitimate explanation. Again, if want to just go with what the others say, that's fine. If you want me to elaborate, just ask.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: