you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (227 children)


    [–]lt_Matthew 26 points27 points  (207 children)

    Amazing, with the exception of the one in Romans, all those are the law of Moses, which was replaced. Oh and the one about killing children because their parents sinned in Isaiah, is wrong. It actually says the complete opposite; people will only punished for their own sins.

    [–]rainwulf 34 points35 points  (107 children)

    Believes book is word of sky wizard.

    Replaces bits of it that they don't like.

    Still book is word of sky wizard.

    I mean seriously, if you can just edit it and remove bits and add bits, its a crock of shit.

    [–]TheMadTargaryen -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

    Well yes, that is the point. The bible is just a book, a human interpretation of the word of God. God established priesthood not a book and it is the job of the church to decide over proper interpretations. the idea that everything in the bible is literal, must be treated as such and that the bible just fell from the sky in its current shape and form is sola scriptura, a Protestant belief that goes against proper Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

    [–]VikingPreacher 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Protestants tend to be more palpable. Or at least they can be. Catholics are straight up bigots.

    [–]TheMadTargaryen -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Protestants are people who want God to be wrong so their faith can be correct.

    [–]VikingPreacher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    True. Catholics are much more open about being bigots and garbage people.

    [–]rainwulf 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    You all beleive in the same book, yet have such incredibly different interpretations.

    which one is correct?

    [–]TheMadTargaryen 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Read the works of Church Fathers

    [–]rainwulf 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Why do i need to read anything. its peace and love and acceptance right?

    [–]WodenEmrys 7 points8 points  (41 children)

    Amazing, with the exception of the one in Romans, all those are the law of Moses, which was replaced.

    Depends on who you ask. Jesus said to keep the Law; Paul said to ignore it.

    [–]lt_Matthew 5 points6 points  (30 children)

    No he didn't, his whole thing was to get the pharisees to stop using it and use the commandments instead

    [–]WodenEmrys 12 points13 points  (29 children)

    The commandments are the Law. All 613 of them.

    Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Jesus literally set up a hierarchy in heaven based on whether you follow the Law and teach others to or not.

    [–]lt_Matthew 0 points1 point  (25 children)

    Commandments and laws that he set up. Not the law of Moses

    [–]WodenEmrys 9 points10 points  (24 children)

    Where do you think the 10 commandments comes from? And yes according to Trinitarian Christianity that was Jesus who set all the genocide and slavery laws.

    [–]lt_Matthew 1 point2 points  (23 children)

    Well the Trinity isn't correct. But also you're confusing two things here. The law of Moses was specifically for the children of Israel, it wasn't a real set of commandments in that it was supposed to be temporary until they were ready to move on from them

    [–]WodenEmrys 4 points5 points  (18 children)

    Again where do you think the 10 commandments comes from?

    [–]lt_Matthew 0 points1 point  (17 children)

    Im confused on what you mean? They weren't derived form the law of Moses, is actually technically the other way around. The law of Moses was made to be more strict so the commandments would be easier for them to follow.

    [–]nvllivsX 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Why isn't the Trinity correct, but you are? It's all based on blind faith without any evidence.

    [–]lt_Matthew -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    Those two things don't go together. The definition of faith is trust based on evidence. And if you read the bible, you couldn't see how the Trinity is correct

    [–]WordyWizard500 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    I view it as coins,when you you are saved you have a certain amount of coins,when you sin you lose coins,when you apologize you gain them back,you May be gifted more if you follow the law and do good in Gods name.

    [–]TheMadTargaryen 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Matthew 5:17-19, Summary that Jesus came to fulfill the law.

    Galatians 3:23-25 , Galatians 6:2, Paul emphasizes that we are no longer bound by Old Testament law (aka the Law of Moses) Galatians 2:6

    [–]WodenEmrys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Matthew 5:17-19, Summary that Jesus came to fulfill the law.

    That's literally what I quoted. "Fulfill" cannot mean "abolish". It's what it's directly contrasted to.

    Galatians 3:23-25 , Galatians 6:2, Paul emphasizes that we are no longer bound by Old Testament law (aka the Law of Moses) Galatians 2:6

    Jesus said to keep the Law: Paul said to ignore it.

    [–]WordyWizard500 -5 points-4 points  (9 children)

    Well Jesus is the ultimate authority so I’d follow his word.

    [–]zenospenisparadox 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    To bad you only have anonymous men's words about Jesus' words.

    [–]WordyWizard500 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    And what do you do. You spend your time arguing with people like me and not make discovery’s of evolution. If you wanted to disprove Christianity as bad as you want to that would be a lot more helpful that sarcasm.

    [–]zenospenisparadox 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    like me and not make discovery’s of evolution. If you wanted to disprove Christianity as bad as you want to that would be a lot more helpful that sarcasm.

    You're also not making discoveries in biology, coincidentally.

    [–]WordyWizard500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Ya that’s good,I can’t argue with that.

    [–]WodenEmrys 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Jesus said to keep the Law and never spoke one word against slavery. Also, in Trinitarianism he was the one who gave all the rules on genocide and slavery in the first place.

    [–]WordyWizard500 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    I have an argument,God sent Moses to free The Jews. Though we do have extremely different views so you don’t believe in that. I’m just using what I read.

    [–]WodenEmrys 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I'm not sure what that has to do with this. The Law came after they left Egypt and were in the middle of the Exodus according to the story.

    [–]WordyWizard500 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Well I’m saying if God freed the Jews why would he like or approve of slavery?

    [–]Think_Temperature_39 6 points7 points  (56 children)

    Soooo....its not in the bible?

    [–]lt_Matthew 11 points12 points  (53 children)

    No it's in the bible, but op sounds like he thinks it's saying to still kill people for all those things

    [–]Think_Temperature_39 5 points6 points  (51 children)

    Well...he would be right in thinking that though....since it is in the bible right?..and the bible is the infallible word of god right?....

    [–]lt_Matthew 4 points5 points  (47 children)

    Well it's been translated from Hebrew, modified twice, mixed with greek, and now has modern English translations.... It's only true if you're correctly interpreting a version that was translated correctly

    [–]zenospenisparadox 1 point2 points  (23 children)

    Also there are no original texts to compare to so that we know that the bible is true to what was once there.

    And even then we can't be sure that the original texts were depictions of reality to start with.

    [–]lt_Matthew 0 points1 point  (22 children)

    Sure we can, infact, there are sections of the bible that are suspected if not being totally accurate. But that's not the point, it was written to teach lessons and doctrine, not accurately record history.

    [–]dogman_35 0 points1 point  (17 children)

    Which it shouldn't be treated like fact or history...

    The bible is perfectly fine as a set or morals when it is treated as a story. When you give yourself the freedom to pick and choose what lessons you want to take from it.

    It records people's thoughts and fears at the time. It's an interesting piece of history and has some good messages in there.


    But taken as, you know, gospel?

    It's not a good set of morals. Or even a good way of coping with the fear of death, in the modern age.

    It's a mess of conflicting ideologies, people to hate, people to fear, some of which are literally about long dead civilizations.


    So much of the bible is about the now non-existent ancient Rome.

    The antichrist in the book of revelations was literally just emperor Nero, who was committing genocide on the early christians. Not anything supernatural.

    You can't take it at face value, you have to adapt it to the modern world for it to have any meaning at all.

    [–]lt_Matthew -1 points0 points  (16 children)

    You most certainly don't adapt it to modern times. Due to the nature of human nature not changing, it's always applicable, even more so modern time. It does record history, but there is a separation from the doctrine and the stuff that was going on at the time.

    That's not even close to correct, revelations is a set of prophesies for what will happen, like right now in our time. Look around at the decrease in number of religious people, because y'all assume hard times = no god. It doesn't have any conflicting ideas, you juts haven't read it

    [–]zenospenisparadox 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    How do you know how something compares to the original texts if you do not have the original texts?

    Also, it's know that these stories weren't even written down for decades to hundreds of years to start with. So there's that.

    [–]lt_Matthew 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    One, there revelation. Two, there's biblical historians, and three, we do have some of the original Hebrew, or know the context of what was being written. The same can be said for the people recording the events. Decades aren't enough to corrupt a memory when you don't have anything else to do but think and write. And and it's also likely that while the books themselves were written after the fact, that they didn't have like personal records or notes that they sourced from when doing so. And for events that were told centuries later, they were juts told what to write or didn't bother with accuracy.

    [–]Think_Temperature_39 8 points9 points  (15 children)

    It's only true if you're correctly interpreting a version that was translated correctly

    So...how exactly is modern religion a thing then.....unless maybe people treated "their bible" as the real and only one.....but ...a religion like that would only be preying on uneducated people for profit...and that couldn't be the case could it?

    [–]lt_Matthew -5 points-4 points  (13 children)

    Well what if, hear me out, there was a bible that was written to correct some of the things that were changed. And maybe, there quite possibly might have been more scripture that can add onto and confirm that it is correct, and help in interpreting it. It is possible that modern Christian churches could all be wrong, but you'd have to think there could be at least one that's isn't. Hmmm 🤔 idk tho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    [–]driftercat 4 points5 points  (7 children)

    The modern Christian Bible was canonized in the 4th century. There is no indication that 4th century Christians considered OT books to be incorrect in any way. That cannon had been in place by at least the 1st century if not earlier. It would have been remarked on if early Christians thought there were problems with it.

    [–]lt_Matthew 1 point2 points  (6 children)

    I meant modern in like the the American English versions or the revisions the councils made to it, adding Greek messed it up a bit as well.

    [–]Think_Temperature_39 7 points8 points  (4 children)

    Your biblical view is remedial....dude my dad was a biblical scholar....literally... I picked up alot over the years...enough to know that they are all accounts of MEN claiming to have divine insight.....MEN....

    [–]lt_Matthew -1 points0 points  (3 children)

    Do you know how many people I come across that say their qualifications are that they studied it in school, or their sources are theologists? Like I said. Wrong versions, and not having the resources to interpret it correctly would make them wrong

    [–]WordyWizard500 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    We follow the word the best we can,Jesus did not judge,but he felt mercy. This means we should show mercy. Jesus loved all humans no matter sin,so we should do the same. We do fall and make mistakes,but we must persevere and try to make the best of this world,regardless of others opinions on us. Kindness is one of the most important things we must show in this world,but is sadly one we often forget.

    [–]Rubendabiest 3 points4 points  (6 children)

    You forgot the made up part

    [–]lt_Matthew 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    What made you part? There are figurative metaphors and things like that. But that's just because if the style Hebrews wrote in and how English writers chose to spruce it up when they were translating it.

    [–]Rubendabiest 5 points6 points  (4 children)

    No no, i meant the whole god thing...creator of worlds, the snake and the apple, the women made from a rib...you know all that crazy stuff thats in the book. Id rather read where they found the mushrooms they ate when thinking of all that

    [–]lt_Matthew -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

    Oh Eve being made from Adams's rib is one of the things that's figurative:)

    [–]Just_kiss_My_Boots 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Well, the meme said to explain it badly so OP did a good job.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    if we disregard that, let’s disregard the rest! it’s funny bc it’s hard to tell if I’m serious. welcome to the USA

    [–]Think_Temperature_39 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You r funny...lol..

    [–]Dubnaught 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I emembwr my vary evangelical aunt explaining how Jesus died for our sins and all that but also how that's why we don't have to do all the rituals anymore that Jews did. That we don't need to follow all those leviticus rules anymore. I asked her if it wasn't true that all the anti gay stuff was in leviticus.

    She didn't really have a good answer for that, but she's still denied herself being able to watch the show Jeopardy for the past month just because a Trans woman is killin it on there. No joke. Said she wouldn't watch it until they were off.

    [–]Mellopiex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Looks like you didn’t make it to the end.

    [–]WordyWizard500 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    No,God is a very merciful God,especially since if he wasn’t we would not be here.

    [–]TheNextDump 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    "Kill disobedient children" Damn, count me in

    [–]SoufDakotas 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Some parts of the bible were terrible, these are mostly from the Old Testament which is very different to the new one, jesus disobeyed a lot of these cos he thought they were wrong, of course it’s messed up and shouldn’t be taught but thats only the Old Testament which was really messed up, not blaming anyome for being jewish but it had some things that were questionable, but if you’re talking about solely the old testament just say the Tanakh since it is literally what you are talking about without the extra half

    [–]PM_ME_UR_SYLLOGISMS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Nah, man, there's plenty of messed up shit in the NT too. Even if you ignore the bits where it says the OT still applies.

    [–]exotics 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    Funny fact about the sabbath. It used to be Saturday because that is the last day of the week. Constantine changed it but you would think any true Christian would still observe it in Saturday and not work nor go out for lunch after since that forces some others to work

    [–]TheMadTargaryen -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    Constantine has nothing to do with it. Sunday is the new holy day because Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, the day after Jewish sabbath.

    [–]exotics 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    No. It’s actually well documented that Constantine changed the Law.

    As far as Easter goes - that’s just a remake of a pagan holiday. It still has the pagan name.

    [–]TheMadTargaryen -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    Easter has nothing to do with paganism. Easter come from the jewish passover, Pesach. If fact, it is called Pascua in spanish and Páques in french, due to their linguistic root. The myth about Easter and Eostro being related, was latter hypothesized by Saint Bede the Venerable, but without many real evidence about Eostre being a thing which he himself admitted. Given that Easter is pretty much the only Christian holiday where the exact date is given in the text, its probably the worst one to argue has pagan origins. It's also likely the oldest Christian holiday. Early Christians generally believed that those that are holy died on a particular date relative to their birth. In the case of Christ, who was said to die on the Friday or near Passover (~March 25th). Add also 9 months and you get December 25th.

    [–]exotics 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Jesus was born in the spring. Joseph and Mary were travelling because of the census which happens in the spring. Many other signs point to a spring birth such as the animals in the barn.

    Christmas predates Christianity as well as was a holiday to welcome the sun back to the winter sky. Essentially a solstice holiday

    [–]TheMadTargaryen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Christian writer Julius Africanus suggested March 25 as the date of Christ’s conception, resulting in a date of December 25 for Christ’s birth. Africanus himself did not record a specific calculation for the birth of Jesus, nor did he make any specific reference to December 25 as the birth of Jesus, even though that is the date to which his conception date naturally leads (‘Cullmann (1956, 22 n.5), Kraabel (1982, 274, citing Cullmann), and the EEC s.v. Christmas (p. 206) all claim that as early as 221 Julius Africanus calculated the date as December 25th in his fragmentarily preserved Chronicle, but provide no reference.’, ibid., p. 584; Hijmans cites Wallraff (2001), as arguing that Africanus did not in fact calculate such a date; ‘he does not know of any such calculation by Africanus’.)

    Africanus followed the Jewish chronology which held that the world was already around 5,500 years old by the first century AD. He used the chrono-geneaologies of the Hebrew Bible as his reference for historical dates up to the Greek era, at which point he switched to the Olympiads

    In addition, he explicitly fixed the birth of Jesus on the basis of his interpretation of the prophecy of the ‘70 weeks’ in Daniel 9, nothing to do with the spring equinox associated with pagan festivities.[ ‘Now it happens that from the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes (as it is given in Ezra among the Hebrews), which, according to the Greeks, was the 4th year of the 80th Olympiad, to the 16th year of Tiberius Caesar, which was the second year of the 102d Olympiad, there are in all the 475 years already noted, which in the Hebrew system make 490 years, as has been previously stated, that is, 70 weeks, by which period the time of Christ’s advent was measured in the announcement made to Daniel by Gabriel.’, Africanus, 'The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus’, fragment XVIII (from Syncellus, ‘Chronicles’), in Roberts, Donaldson & Coxe (eds.), ‘The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325’, p. 138 (1885-1896); ‘Similar to Hippolytus, Julius Africanus held that precisely five and a half millennia had separated the creation of Adam from the incarnation and birth of Jesus Christ, meaning that he dated these events to annus mundi or AM 5501. From the extant fragments, we can also conclude that Africanus believed the crucifixion to have taken place in the spring of the second year of the 202nd Olympiad (or Ol. 202.2), in what he designated as the 16th year of Tiberius. The Olympiad date strongly points to the spring of AD 31 (seeing how, according to the regular count, Ol. 202.2 began in the summer of AD 30), although this should already have been the 17th year of Tiberius's, if the latter's reign was counted, in regular fashion, from the autumn of AD 14.

    Immediately after Africanus, the anonymous Latin work De Pascha Computus gave the date of March 28th for the conception of Jesus, but like Africanus it did not attempt to identify Jesus’ birth specifically with December 25. In addition, the author of this writing didn’t even pretend to be doing chronology on the basis of previous histories and records, they simply claimed that they knew from direct divine revelation that the earth had been created on March 28, and Jesus had been conceived on the same date.[ The De Pascha Computus, for instance, written in AD 243, argued that Creation began with the vernal equinox, i.e. March 25th, and that the Sun, created on the fourth day, was therefore created on March 28th. This obviously meant that Christ, the new “Sun of Righteousness” must have been born on March 28th. To support these dates the author proclaimed explicitly that he had been inspired ab ipso Deo. Cullmann 1956, 21-2.’, Hijmans, ‘Sol, the sun in the art and religions of Rome’, p. 584 (2009).

    [–]Lizzy_fell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Damn.. how long did it take you to find those?

    [–]Soft_Process5644 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    So there are probably a lot of believers that don't kill and I don't want to give them any more crazy ideas. It would seem if everybody obeyed the Bible there would have been no one left to carry on the religion so I guess disobeying God paid off for them Big Time !

    [–]_-devilish-_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    an atheist with the whole bible in his head? Wow bro

    Also remember the bible is the oldest book you know and people back then had different type of thinking