The annoyance of Christian Biblical selectiveness

[Kais]

Besides all the horrific verses that involve killing babies etc, one excuse always used by theists stands out to me:

'I don't know, God has not revealed his full plan'

But they pretend they do know about other bits of Christianity. You can turn this argument on its head and just say God has not revealed his plan, so you know nothing at all about why your religion is right.

When this excuse is used by theists in an argument, my personal favourite response is to tell them 'Suppose God is lying? Maybe you're a lamb walking to slaughter willingly.'

I'd be interested to find out in God's plan how he has any possible use for people who obey him without question other than to lead them along.

[Nick]

Have you seen those "Mr Diety" clips on youtube?  They give some good insight into God's plan.

[Kais]

I haven't, I'll give them a look though. What is it exactly?

[Nick]

Just take a look...you will understand.

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

Am I the only one that appreciates that most xians have a strong SPAG? Seriously if they didn't there would be a whole lot of stoning going on (not just in the middle east).

[peterofthecorn]

Am I the only one that appreciates that most xians have a strong SPAG? Seriously if they didn't there would be a whole lot of stoning going on (not just in the middle east).

What about the fact that, according to the law, it is not the responsibility of every person to carry out the civil penalties of the Israelite law, but the nation's court, which does not currently exist? Why is it hypocritical to not disregard the places of authority ordained by the Torah?

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

Peter please restate that in english.

[SherB]

Have you seen those "Mr Diety" clips on youtube?  They give some good insight into God's plan.

I love Mr. Diety! Been watching all night and laughing my ass off. Thanks for turning me on to it.
---SherB 

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

I like Mr. Diety, very low key, very convincing. Oh yeah and very funny.

[peterofthecorn]

Peter please restate that in english.

It already was in English, but I'll reword it.

If I see a rebellious child, it's not my job to stone him. The law says that it is the job of the court in Israel to do so. The court in Israel doesn't exist. Thus, no stoning.

[Kais]

Am I the only one that appreciates that most xians have a strong SPAG? Seriously if they didn't there would be a whole lot of stoning going on (not just in the middle east).

What about the fact that, according to the law, it is not the responsibility of every person to carry out the civil penalties of the Israelite law, but the nation's court, which does not currently exist? Why is it hypocritical to not disregard the places of authority ordained by the Torah?

So the Israeli government has the final say over all crimes according to the Bible?  

[peterofthecorn]

So the Israeli government has the final say over all crimes according to the Bible? 

No, only the people who are obligated by the Jewish law. If you are not under the obligation of the Jewish law, then stoning does not apply to you.

[Count Iblis]

If I see a rebellious child, it's not my job to stone him. The law says that it is the job of the court in Israel to do so. The court in Israel doesn't exist. Thus, no stoning.

Where does the Written Law state this?

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

Peter please restate that in english.

It already was in English, but I'll reword it.

If I see a rebellious child, it's not my job to stone him. The law says that it is the job of the court in Israel to do so. The court in Israel doesn't exist. Thus, no stoning.

Somehow, I feel like I am being stonewalled.

[velkyn]

Peter please restate that in english.

It already was in English, but I'll reword it.

If I see a rebellious child, it's not my job to stone him. The law says that it is the job of the court in Israel to do so. The court in Israel doesn't exist. Thus, no stoning.

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

[subtleinspiration]

^ does these morons ever get embarrassed when they are so easily proven wrong? From their own "holy scriptures" no less?

[peterofthecorn]

How exactly did he prove me wrong? He just quoted a verse that basically said the parents have a rebellius child; then the whole town participates in the stoning. There is an intermediate step. somebody has to do the arbitration of deciding whether or not they can be stoned.

Consider, for example:
"On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness..." (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)

There had to be a judge for this.

[subtleinspiration]

They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.

"They shall say X, then" . No intermediate steps here. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. And stop adding stuff to the bible. Jebus hates it when you do that.

And Velkyn is a woman.

[peterofthecorn]

I have poor reading comprehension because I don't make extrabiblical assumptions?

And I don't really care what Jesus thinks about me.

[Gimpy]

If I see a rebellious child, it's not my job to stone him. The law says that it is the job of the court in Israel to do so. The court in Israel doesn't exist. Thus, no stoning.

Well, isn't that convenient.

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

^^ Yeah, they always have some excuse why they can't carryout YHWH's bloody laws.

[kcrady]

I'm with you on this Reason--I'm glad they don't!  SPAG is good.   Thankfully, Jesus repealed all those laws while simultaneously upholding them for all time.  He can do that kinda stuff...cause he's Jesus.  What I find fascinating is how Christians can dismiss virtually everything Jesus ever said about money.

[subtleinspiration]

I have poor reading comprehension because I don't make extrabiblical assumptions?

You said the the court of Israel had to do the stoning. The verse explicitly says that the parents go to the elders and inform them that their son is stubborn and rebellious. After they say this, then men of the town will stone him to death.

That's explicitly stated. You pulled this whole "court of Israel" thing out of your ass and applied it to this verse. That makes Jebus mad. You should probably say about thirty "Hail Mary's" and help an old person across the street or something to keep from going to hell.

[velkyn]

I have poor reading comprehension because I don't make extrabiblical assumptions?

And I don't really care what Jesus thinks about me.

hahahaahaa    How perfect an example of projection.  Peter, *you* are making extrabiblical assumptions by claiming that there *must* be a judge.  There is nothing there that says this.  I made no assumption, I just posted the verses *as is*.  And I have excellent reading comprehension. 

You seem to be just one more theist who decides for himself what God must want just what he wants. 

[Count Iblis]

You seem to be just one more theist who decides for himself what God must want just what he wants. 

This seems appropriate.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cvKcMbzN_A" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cvKcMbzN_A</a>

[Gaston]

What I find fascinating is how Christians can dismiss virtually everything Jesus ever said about money.

I think it basically boils down to the liberties that the protestantic/lutheran church  let it's followers have. Whereas the catholic church kept a tight grip on it's followers with various business solutions, the protestantic/lutheran churchs basically survived through means from the state as well as charity. To get substantial charity, the church needs wealthy benefactors with a positive outlook on the institution. So promoting wealth and individual rights is a good solution for the church. Remember that many christians are more involved with the church and the community around it, rather than the scriptures themself. So to them, it would seem soemwhat natural to keep a mindset of "you get what you deserve" IRL.

[velkyn]

I think it basically boils down to the liberties that the protestantic/lutheran church  let it's followers have. Whereas the catholic church kept a tight grip on it's followers with various business solutions, the protestantic/lutheran churchs basically survived through means from the state as well as charity. To get substantial charity, the church needs wealthy benefactors with a positive outlook on the institution. So promoting wealth and individual rights is a good solution for the church. Remember that many christians are more involved with the church and the community around it, rather than the scriptures themself. So to them, it would seem soemwhat natural to keep a mindset of "you get what you deserve" IRL.

which still seems to indicate that neither papists or protestants pay attention to their bible when it says trust that they should have no belongings, abandoning everything for God and trust that God will provide for them. 

[Gaston]

which still seems to indicate that neither papists or protestants pay attention to their bible when it says trust that they should have no belongings, abandoning everything for God and trust that God will provide for them. 

Actually, that depends on the person. In general, I've found that most christians seems to rely more on the community in regards to the religion (e.g. listening to the priest and the members of the church, rather than the bible itself.) But I've also met several christians who have a pretty amazing knowledge and appreciation of the bible and it's origins.

As for the belongnings thing, are you talking about Matthew 6? Or perhaps about Mark 10:17-25?

[velkyn]

which still seems to indicate that neither papists or protestants pay attention to their bible when it says trust that they should have no belongings, abandoning everything for God and trust that God will provide for them. 

Actually, that depends on the person. In general, I've found that most christians seems to rely more on the community in regards to the religion (e.g. listening to the priest and the members of the church, rather than the bible itself.) But I've also met several christians who have a pretty amazing knowledge and appreciation of the bible and it's origins.
As for the belongnings thing, are you talking about Matthew 6? Or perhaps about Mark 10:17-25?

I agree, most theists depend on what someone else tells them they should believe or what God really meant.  Which fascinates me since their holy books are supposedly what tells them how to get in good with their deity.  I would think they would be studying it 24/7.

There are several places in the NT where it says give up everything and trust in god.  Those are a good start.  I have heard such excuses about those.

[Gaston]

I agree, most theists depend on what someone else tells them they should believe or what God really meant.  Which fascinates me since their holy books are supposedly what tells them how to get in good with their deity.  I would think they would be studying it 24/7.

I think most people who are in religion in todays world (depending a bit on where they live) are mostly in it due to social reasons. Knowing that you'll live forever, and someone is in control of this Godless place is also a comforting thought, but seems to be more of a bonus rather than the cornerstone of the belief. I've seen many different groups in the community, and some of the most tightly and well organized are the religious ones.

There are several places in the NT where it says give up everything and trust in god.  Those are a good start.  I have heard such excuses about those.

I've discussed the rich man and the eye of the needle thing with christians (as in people who actually read the Bible and seems to attempt their best to live by it), and it does seem to me that it is legimate to not assume that Jesus is talking about everyone with material wealth there, but rather about people who are consumed with their belongings. Jesus does say a lot of weird things to a lot of people, so even if it's a bit "secret decoder ring"ish to try to interpret what he really means in all passages, I can definatly understand such an interpretation of it. That passage is also the most directly commanding one in regards to doing off with ones material wealth, so I wouldn't disagree with such an interpretation of similar passages either. At least as far as I'm informed.