Why do atheists always try this strategy of quoting a bible verse or ancient quote out of context, as if that could somehow "debunk" everything?
Why do atheists always try this strategy of quoting a bible verse or ancient quote out of context, as if that could somehow "debunk" everyth...
>context brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo that quote is out of contextttttttttttttt
Name 5
Oh no, I can't name exactly 5 off the top of my head! I guess this opinion post has been #deboonked.
Looks that way. Gee you'd think you would be less lazy about your own deeply held beliefs.
>Gee you'd think you would be less lazy about your own deeply held beliefs.
Hilarious that you think you know what my "deeply held beliefs" are based on one post.
Well you seem to think atheists take Bible passages out of context but you aren't even familiar enough with scripture to think of even one example. I assumed you were a bible-believing Christian since you seem interested in defending the Bible. Also no meme-arrow, you know what that means...
No, it's because if I jump through your autistic hoops, it won't matter anyway. You will move the goalposts and come up with a new objection that has nothing to do with the original topic. If you don't believe me, that's your problem. Go find something better to do.
>I totally have the info bro, I just won't show it because uuuhhhh reasons
why do retards like you even try this, it just pretty much confirms you don't really know what you are talking about but are desperate to appear smart which just makes it even worse
I don't need a source on my opinion which is based on personal experience. Go read a book and touch grass. The fact you came into this thread to deboonk it instead of engaging with it in a meaningful way is proof enough. You are the prime example of this kind of insufferable behavior.
>source on my opinion which is based on personal experience
>based on personal experience
Thanks that's all I needed to know
You know nothing, based on your reply.
What about based on my reply?
>he says this after pretty much admiting he doesn't have anything to actually back up his statement
I can easily guess you made this thread because somebody else btfo'd you and this was your way of coping, which is why you are also upset you didn't get the circlejerk you wanted
Here's one example that took me no more than 5 seconds to find. I'm sure you could find thousands of examples if you weren't a complete useless moron and used your eyes for once.
But the answer is just the chad yes meme?
>Here's one example that took me no more than 5 seconds to find
Very good stupid Christ-tard anon. Now please explain how this interpretation is wrong.
Like I said, Christians shouldn't even deny it! When I was a Christian I thought less than a percent of everyone who ever lived would be saved. And I definitely wouldn't even post on LULZ.
Yep, that's my experience too. That's literally what biblical scripture itself says.
No, that's not the point of the thread. Try to remember what the topic was. I know it's hard but think really hard or scroll up and you will remember. I asked why atheists think that "deboonking" some random verse somehow disproves all of religion or all of the Bible. Or why they think "deboonking" one thing an author said debunks everything else that author said, such as some random quote by a bishop. Do atheists just wrongly assume that everyone holds a doctrine of inerrancy? That's the question I was asking. Then you sperged out for "proof" and immediately when I provided it, you quickly changed topic exactly like I predicted you would.
So the bible is errant and fallible?
No, it's not. My question is why atheists assume that it is inerrant and infallible. Suppose you found an error in a science textbook. Would you assume that there was some mistake, and look for the correct answer or would you immediate jump to, "HOLY SHIT THIS BOOK IS SO STUPID I JUST DISPROVED SCIENCE LUL SCIENTISTS ARE FUCKING MORONS". Why do you assume that anyone, let alone faithful Christians, would find that a compelling argument against religion? When I find a "contradiction", I don't immediately assume to have debunked all of religion. My first assumption is maybe I didn't understand what I read and should read it again with more context, like reasonanle person would.
Well the differences are scientists are trying to do the best they can on one hand and on the other hand we supposedly have the ultimate conceivable mind and power who is also supposedly 100% honest which leaves no possibility for error.
Let me rephrase the question. Which of the following scenarios is more likely?
>You pick up a 5000 year old ancient book that has been translated into English and immediatly spot an obvious error that nobody else has ever noticed.
>You pick up a 5000 year old ancient book that has been translated into English and misunderstand what you read.
>>You pick up a 5000 year old ancient book that has been translated into English and immediatly spot an obvious error that nobody else has ever noticed.
It's never seen as an error no matter how illogical it is because it's "A holy book from god".
Denying that makes you an evil nonbeliever.
>>You pick up a 5000 year old ancient book that has been translated into English and misunderstand what you read.
Any nonbeliever that just objectively thinks about what they're reading get immediately silenced. Thus the errors remain.
>that nobody else has ever noticed.
Nice pilpul, Schlomi. In general 5000 year old books are retarded and full of mythohistory, so even the former is more probable, if we're not talking about something as popular as the Bible.
I think I figured out the answer. Atheists are dumber than I imagined.
Well agreed. But I'm not an atheist.
Was it reasonable for Game of Thrones fans to tried to harmonize two accounts of a particular character's description in Game of Thrones when George R. R. Martin came out and admitted himself that he had just made a mistake? Its not reasonable to start with the idea that ANY text is infallible.
What's your point? You don't like that atheists assume that you think it is infallible, despite you yourself confirming that you think it is infallible?
> My question is why atheists assume that it is inerrant and infallible.
Because multiple Christian sects believe just this.
>Why do you assume that anyone, let alone faithful Christians, would find that a compelling argument against religion?
Its not, its a compelling argument against any Christian denomination that holds the bible inerrant and infallible.
Did you think maybe they did thix for the sake of all the protestants who do hold to inerrancy? That's a lot of people. You just proved your thread is even more worthless than we previously thought.
>No, that's not the point of the thread.
That is the point of the thread. You accused Atheists of taking biblical quotes out of context.
You need to prove that with an example.
We have an example and you predictably still refuse to substantiate your claims because you're full of shit.
Haha
okay and now explain how its out of context and what the proper context would be
That quote is referring to fat people and how they can't fit through narrow gates, which rules out all americans.
How is asking you to substantiate your claims or debunking for that matter not engaging it in a meaningful way? Did you just want a circle-jerk with all your Christian buddies? Not sure what you were expecting retard. Also touch grass? Fuck off to reddit, retard!
"The sky is blue."
>"Wow, how do you know that? Can you prove me 20 examples of when the sky was ever blue? The sky isn't blue right now so you must be lying! I have no idea what you're talking about. Also you are wrong. Since you are refusing to substantiate your claims, I'll accept your concession."
Okay, you're just a false-flagging troll. Christians definitely have better rhetoric than this. Even presuppositionalists don't compare Biblical inerrancy to the sky being blue. Lol. Lmao even.
>religion is mathematics
But someone could prove it's blue. Even to someone color blind. Blue is just tied to a spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even if you could never see colors you could show how light reacts when interacting with shit in an earth-like atmosphere.
>personal experience
>"It came to me in a dream"
>Go find something better to do
You're the one who posted this garbage thread!
That's because its a cumulative case! Why does Inspiring Philosophy have to make no less than 31 1/4-1/2 hour videos explaining away 31 attendent Bible contradictions. What's more likely, that just one of these holds water and the Bible is not an infallible book or the systematic mental gymnastics of this copeology? That Judas' death was a Rube Goldberg machine and he purchased the field of blood vicariously or that there are two entirely different accounts of how he died? The worst thing Christians ever did to thekir movement was publish the Bible and also make it their ultimate rule of faith.
Excuses. Just admit you've never read the Bible.
Why is it only the passages with apparently negative connotations require context (unless you're a Calvinist who is dead inside and will even vivissect simple passages about universal atonement)?
>Why is it only the passages with apparently negative connotations require context
Those are the ones which are always cited in an attempt to "own" Christians, and they are never quoted in a charitable way.
>Those are the ones which are always cited in an attempt to "own" Christians, and they are never quoted in a charitable way.
They are the only passages that Christians themselves want to hide or lie about.
Yes, they must be lying by providing additional information.
>Yes, they must be lying by providing additional information.
They never do. It's always misleading manipulative crap which makes sense because Christianity literally came from Judaism.
>um you stupid gaytheists dont know what you're talking about, read scripture!
>NO NOT LIKE THAT
Here’s you’re reply
Delicious. Thanks.
>Why do atheists always try this strategy of quoting a bible verse or ancient quote out of context, as if that could somehow "debunk" everything?
Why do Christians only quote or care about context when it benefits their argument and quote out of context when it benefits their argument?
Because that’s all it takes to convince them; Twitter convinced them to troon out and chop off their ducks, and you think they’re gonna all of sudden get smart when it comes to Jesus?
>Because that’s all it takes to convince them; Twitter convinced them to troon out and chop off their ducks
Is that why so many Christians are trans?
>NO THAT'S NOT A REAL SCOTSMAN, NOT LIKE ME, THE ONLY SCOTSMAN IN THE VILLAGE!
But it's usually the religious using it out of context. Take the "lucifer" reference in one of the books that ends up being a mockery of Babylonian astrology and living, existing kings at the time that people say refers to the devil. They always say it refers to Lucifer when reading the book shows it isn't. But they ignore everything after that part. Atheists (unbelievers in a given religion in general really) are the best at reading those scriptures since they don't read it having to come to a predetermined conclusion that proves their god. They can read it with an outside perspective and be neutral because they have no stake in it.
>Atheists (unbelievers in a given religion in general really) are the best at reading those scriptures since they don't read it having to come to a predetermined conclusion that proves their god.
In my experience, that is the exact opposite of true. Atheists are the worst at comprehending religious text. Most of the time they don't even understand the genre of the book they are quoting, let alone the meaning or subtext.
How is it not true? I can read the books and not have a vested interest in making sure the outcome necessarily agrees with what I already believe. I don't have to interpret things a certain way to make things fit whether they do or not. I can know the real historical, cultural, etc., contexts. Whereas as a Christian you can't. You're gonna already have a fixed belief that will be whatever your sect/you think it means. And you have to stick to that against any evidence to the contrary. This is what all religions do. Very few ever actually convert. So is the verse about kings and not Lucifer? Well... the author was divinely inspired and REALLY meant Lucifer and just pretended it was about kings to reference this other thing. It's eaey to just look through and look for some random passage or make some ad hoc excuse that seemingly harmonizes it in your head. As a believer they cannot view it in an impartial sense. That's completely alien and unfomfortable for them.
>most people don't know how to read the Bible
Not surprising
Another issue: schizoid nonsense. Say you point to the Lucifer thing and it being about an existing king. Well they don't care about that context. What they'll do is usually cite a whole different book and verse that they take to be applicable to the "out of context" verse that makes it fit. Did it become about kings? Well, in Job it says... Oh was that verse about slaying Babylonian babies? Well in the New Testament... and so on. Until you get this weird cross referencing passages that different authors at different times and with different religious conceptions said and they just look for some verse (which is trivially easy in a book as large as the Bible) that will cover something. It's kinda sad how they do it. Because if you keep following and allowing their "context" you start getting to some real schizo shit where nothing means anything it actually says and every verse has to now take on new, completely different contexts. A few times I've even had people cite the same verses as context for completely different scenarios and shit. It's like watching a human mind just spin its wheels and going nowhere. The psychology of the religious mind is bizarre to me. I wish it was less taboo to study them and find out what the hell is going on in their heads.
Please just give us one example so we can actually debate it anon.
Atheism is a cult. Cultists aren't really the brightest.
>Atheism is a cult.
Is every school of thought a cult if it disagrees with your beliefs?
Biblical contradictions aren't just stray quotes taken out of context. The gospels disagree with one another on such basic bits of information as when Jesus was born, why he was born in that specific city, how long he preached, and when he died.
>It's not in context because I say so
Just because Christians have spilled hundreds of pages trying to explain away inconvenient bible quotes doesn't change anything.
Don't let reason or logic get in the way of your beliefs.
Try saying the inverse. I can. DO let logic and reason get in the way of your beliefs.
If I found Christian arguments reasonable or logical I would accept them. Much Christian biblical commentary appears at odds with more historical critical analysis, and when it comes to the troublesome quotes, the apologism usually only makes sense of you are already giving the bible and the Chirstian faith the benefit of the doubt in the first place.
>~~*(historical critical analysis*~~)
>Your academic work was written by israelites!'
>Now excuse me while I read this translation of the Tanakh.
The thing that you need to understand is that Athiesm is a magnet for quasi intellectuals.
Its basically a bunch of autists who THINK they are smart taking EVERYTHING LITERALLY. The idea that they are allegories or a metaphor for something is just a notch above their thinking capabilities.
These fags are out here trying to debunk how "God" isnt real, when they dont understand god isnt a literal thing kek
Super cope.
Actual Christians definitely believe God is a real thing, and lots of them believe the bible is meant to be taken literally as an accurate account of history.
They are just as retarded as atheist's kek
No cope, you just have a small brain.
Well the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both.
Being superior to an Atheist is not hard kek
Imagine not even being able to understand allegory's and metaphors of stories
They literally teach that shit in high school kek
what the hell is bookmarked?
Probably a Vertasium video
Snopes.com you fucking moron!
god is obviously self evident. you nerds are in denial
>how dare you demand that my beliefs are supposed to make sense