756
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
756 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19150 readers
2326 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
I was arguing about locking immigrates in cages and separating families with a religious person and told them the verse
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...
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.
Confirmed. In my native language, the guy is called DJ Oetker McSnack-a-bit O'Parma. IIRC, he used to teach people about making love to their neighbors just like they'd be making love to themselves, and such...
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
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.
As a Christian, I agree with this idea and I also find the proposed law rather silly because it's the same kind of virtue signaling that conservatives love to accuse liberals of.
What I don't understand is why the article considers this "standing up for LGBT+ rights". Can anyone help me with that?
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
There's no point in that. Religion is a literal mental illness brought on though trauma. What chosen book they fixate on is irrelevant.
Religious people should be treated like any rambling untreated schizophrenic. Because that is the extent of their illness.
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.
Unfortunately, unless you also follow the Bible to a larger degree than they do, it makes you just as much of a hypocrite.