• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Most Ignored Bible Teachings

 
 
 
Lion IRC said:
And yet here you are (via the Op) telling us that every one of Gods' 'teachings' are permanently applicable to everyone. (Shame on me for eating bacon and oysters.)
What do you know about the bible that biblical theists don't?
Click to expand...


[h=1]Matthew 5:17-20[/h] 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


So, do I believe you or Jesus? If the NT takes precedence over the OT, see again, Acts 2 and 4. Why aren't you a communist? Why have you not sold all you have and given to the poor?

Luke 14
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
 
Lion IRC said:
And yet here you are (via the Op) telling us that every one of Gods' 'teachings' are permanently applicable to everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's what Christians are telling us. But they clearly don't always apply that principle to themselves...

(Shame on me for eating bacon and oysters.)
Click to expand...

...like that. Add that to the list of conveniently ignored teachings.
 
James Brown said:
Yes, because that's what Christians are telling us. But they clearly don't always apply that principle to themselves...

(Shame on me for eating bacon and oysters.)
Click to expand...

...like that. Add that to the list of conveniently ignored teachings.
Click to expand...

Clearly, everyone in fact uses his/her intelligence, such as it is, rather than depend on dubious texts based on all sorts of historical oddity. If you ever learned to read historical text you get to recognise the general spirit of the thing, rather than odd stories or sentences put in for historical advantage by someone or other, and in the Gospels we soon get a sense of what Jesus was like. Those who worship the letter are manifestly not Christians: let 'em worship the three kings, if they like that sort of thing. It is more important to put together an historical Jesus and grasp what the early Church was like, then see how much of that we can use today - which is, I think, a remarkable amount.
 
Would you take moral instruction from a pastor who on occasion justified slavery or thought genocide could be condoned? (Et cetera. Emphasis on et cetera.)
 
C_Mucius_Scaevola said:
Shadowy Man said:
Of course. We all know Jesus was a Jew.
Click to expand...

Yup. And not only that, but a lot of what Xians (are supposed to) follow comes not from Jesus, but from Paul. Jesus wasn't at all influenced by Paul's teachings, many of which are contradictory to what he (is supposed to have) taught. And ultimately, if a Xian is defined as "a follower of Christ", then Christ himself couldn't possibly be a Xian, as he couldn't follow himself ... unless he was a dog chasing its tail, or an Ouroboros.
Click to expand...

Yea. And the theology of the Catholic sect after Paul was continually distorted throughout it's history.

Most people claiming to be Christians don't know much, if anything, about Jesus himself, or anything he directly taught, and a lot of the practices they follow didn't actually come from him.

It's hilarious, and at the same time sad, to me that there are people today who wait until marriage to have sex because of what some Catholic clergy-men theorized in the 4th century.
 
The instructions about the correct way to beat your slaves to death is almost universally ignored. The vast majority of them are unchristian enough to not have slaves in the first place.
 
If it only applied to the guy that he said it to, why is it in the Bible? Not everything Jesus said or did is in the Bible. He doubtless gave personal advice to lots of people, which is not recorded.

Besides, when has a christian ever hesitated to bang his bible at someone else whenever it suits them? Next time a christian does that to me, I'll just say that verse is obsolete and no longer applies.
 
Going back to the treatment of women Christians have no such recourse as to argue that those words were spoken just to one person. The bible clearly teaches that women are to be "silent," that they must never hold authority over (or even attempt to teach anything to) a man, that if they have any questions they cannot ask them in public, but must ask "their husbands at home." They must also keep their heads covered when in public.

Paul even goes so far as to justify this by appealing to the "fact" that "Eve was temped first, then Adam." One implication of that is that for as long as that remains the order in which these events took place in this mythology that's just how it has to be.

All females who occupy any position that places them in authority over any man must abdicate their positions if they want to be Christians. Whether she's a straw boss or a CEO; if she holds any public office from county commissioner to POTUS she's placing her eternal soul in jeopardy by thumbing her nose at the word of gawd. (Which incidentally draws attention to the hypocrisy of that female court clerk who wouldn't grant marriage licenses to gay couples in Kentucky awhile back, huh?)

The typical rationalization is that it is because of the culture in which they lived. This is never stated anywhere in the text. The same rationalization is often used to justify the sanctioning of slavery evident in the scriptures, but the text never says anything of the sort about those subjects either.

It's not like Paul was incapable of pointing out things that were situational in nature. When he wrote about it being better for people to remain single (I Cor 7) he specifies that some of this was his opinion and not commandments, and that some of it only applied to some "present distress."

No caveats like that are given when Paul speaks of women's' roles. Any woman who is in any position of authority (or even equality) with a man is in violation of direct orders given by Paul. True there are other passages in the bible (written by different authors) that contradict this, but I'm not arguing that the bible isn't contradictory. Just showing what Paul's take was based on what he wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom