NB: This is a Christian book from a Christian publisher. For future reference, if you want to block these posts, you can do so by blocking the tag "Christianity". Here's the guide: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/513367
This is a great series. A light on commentary that still gives good ideas for sermons, or to be used devotionally.
Oh I thought you were being sarcastic
Which misinformation in particular?
Good question. I'm a Christian, but definitely don't want to be misinformed and waste my time if Christianity's false, so if @doobes could kindly help to set us straight, that'd be great.
If you haven't worked out that all religions are based on nothing but lies and misinformation then nothing here is going to change your delusion
@doobes: I'm eager to learn, so help me out.
How did you work it out? How did you determine with such confidence that Christianity is "based on nothing but lies and misinformation"?
@doobes: Good luck trying to undo years of reinforcement! For most of them it probably started with Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy and is now somewhere between staunch conservatism and radical British-Israelism :)
If it was possible (in more than 1% of cases [I was a lucky one]) to expose to someone they've been living a lie, there could be serious medical consequences in the worst case, due to how deeply worldview can be intertwined with identity in certain cases.
These books can feed the plausibility structure, but they can also simply be some added context to something of interest/something someone happens to already be familiar with due to circumstance.
But I do get your need to vent about this stuff, and it's almost a shame that one can only block the tag from oneself and not others, who might be more vulnerable. That said, there's a 1% chance that it can teach the vulnerable to be stronger and more resistant, or give them hope and comfort at a desperate time (hopefully temporarily until rehabilitation is complete, and then they're able to continue without a crutch or the need to read the same crud over and over).
Regarding destination, yeah chances are we'll all be pushing up daisies, but there's a certain magic quality about life that makes it hard to say for sure (if human existence is possible, then surely, almost anything is?). Scientifically, we can't really prove either way, regarding the afterlife (or lack thereof), tho.
All of it?
I mean, there’s something like 3000 religions to choose from. How are you so sure that it’s the other 2999 that have it wrong?
@dwarves: When did I say I'm sure about anything? I've made no claims; all I've done is ask questions.
But since you asked, here's a fact: Jesus was explicit that he is the one and only God. As such, if Christianity is true, every other religion is false.
The question is, is it true? It seems you assert not, and so I'm keen to know - how do you know?
@Ford Prefect: How do you know this as fact? There's definitely scholarly debate about whether Jesus declared himself God, the Jesus Seminar (for example) concluding it likely he did not.
@eephus: Thanks for the question.
The Jesus Seminar’s methodology and conclusions have been widely criticised for relying heavily on subjective criteria and discounting early manuscript evidence that clearly supports Jesus’ divine claims. While it questions the historicity of Jesus explicitly claiming to be God, the overwhelming scholarly consensus concludes otherwise.
In short, the New Testament records Jesus making multiple explicit and implicit claims to divinity. Indeed, he was sent to the cross for doing precisely that at his trial.
Happy to expand if this is an area of genuine interest for you.
@Ford Prefect: Thanks for your response.
I strongly suspect there's scholars of all stripes coming down on both sides of this argument. That's why I asked why you consider this a fact. Even "overwhelming scholarly consensus" (which I disagree exists on this particular point) doesn't equal fact.
@eephus: Of course you're right to say there are opposing scholarly views, although I maintain the broader (if not overwhelming) consensus is Jesus did repeatedly claim to be divine.
Either way, though, the argument is moot if he actually went on to prove his deity by rising from the dead. What are your thoughts on the resurrection? Would you agree that, if it truly happened, the matter is settled? Christ is God?
@Ford Prefect: Well, that's an interesting question. Even if the resurrection was a physically resuscitated body (which I doubt), it wouldn't mean Jesus was actually God - to me.
We all know Paul became a Christian some years after the crucifixion, and in one of his letters he lists all those that Jesus "appeared" to - and the list includes Paul himself. So if it's Jesus' actual body been brought back to life after the crucifixion, either Jesus was walking the Earth all those years, or he came back to Earth to visit Paul (and we're actually waiting for the third coming), or the resurrection is something else.
@eephus: That's an interesting perspective.
You may be aware of Dr Gary Habermas, who is arguably the world's pre-eminent expert on the resurrection. Habermas has identified a core set of historical facts, with each so well-evidenced and so well-attested that they're accepted as true by virtually all scholars, including the skeptical ones. Applying abductive reasoning, he argues that the best explanation for them, and the only scrutinised explanation that satisfactorily accounts for them all, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is known as the 'minimal facts' argument.
The minimal facts include, among other things:
Regarding Jesus' body, the disciples described a bodily resurrection, but with a new body, such that, at first, some of them didn't recognise him.
Assuming you aren't already aware of the minimal facts argument - and please forgive me if you are - does the additional detail and context shape your thinking?
@Ford Prefect: I happen to be familiar with the minimal facts argument (I've listened to too many Atheist/Christian debates). I quite like it. I'd forgotten some details but you've explained it nicely.
For me, the minimal facts case works without a physical body walking around. The earliest accounts, by some margin, of the resurrected Jesus are in Paul's letters. Paul speaks only of "appearances". The earliest versions of Mark (the earliest Gospel), make no mention of any experiences. If there were physical aspects of the risen Jesus I would expect them mentioned in all recollections, being absent from the earliest accounts seems particularly telling.
@eephus: I have to say I greatly respect the depth of thought you've given to the subject. It's quite rare, and makes for a very refreshing change from the usual personal attacks!
You make a fair point. I’d just add, though, that in the original Greek, Paul’s word “appeared” never means something like 'vision' or 'apparition' unless the context clearly indicates that. In 1 Corinthians 15 (the epistle you're referring to) the context leans heavily towards real, objective encounters (group appearances, the five-hundred with “most still alive,” etc).
Also, in that chapter, Paul’s entire argument is explicitly for bodily resurrection, and not simply survival or visions. Whatever form the appearances took, Paul is convinced they involved a risen, transformed body rather than something purely non-physical. And of course, that's not to mention the Gospel accounts of the disciples touching Jesus, eating with him, and so on. Those are categorically physical encounters.
As for Mark, the silence may seem interesting, however it's not so much silence as it is presupposition. The creed Paul quoted in 1 Corinthians 15, which proclaimed the fundamental tenets of Christianity - including Christ's deity, death and resurrection - is known to have been in wide circulation long before Mark's Gospel was written. The creed, and the beliefs of which it's comprised, has been dated to within months of the crucifixion! The earliest Christians were preaching the resurrection right from the very beginning.
As an aside, have you read 'Cold Case Christianity' by J Warner Wallace? If not, I'm confident you'd find it quite compelling in the way it addresses the apparent omissions and contradictions in the Gospels. I don't know where you're located, but I'd be prepared to lend or even buy you a copy.
@Ford Prefect: ZOMG I can’t even
If ANY religion has it right, the others have it wrong. Is that so hard to grasp?
what you claim Jesus said (I mean…were you there?), assuming he ever existed and if so assuming also that he actually did say it, is what we call “argument by declaration”.
your inability to recognise that shows how utterly blinkered and deluded you are your kind are
@dwarves: In addition to misunderstanding my point, none of this in any way puts the slightest dent in the claims of Christianity. You assert it's false. I ask, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
……you are (sic) your kind are
wow, prejudice hate speech much (based on the definitions of what politicians and lobbyists are pushing for).
If you stated that next month about believers from a certain different faith, you'd be going to gaol.
But apparently if you're Christian it's ok to mock and ridicule them, call them deluded, nutters, dangerous, weird. etc
Say the same about ultra-orthodox Jews and see what happens, cos nothing happens if you say it about Christians.
It always cracks me up that so many people have such strong anti opinions on Christianity.
How many of these sceptics have actually studied and analysed scripture, I mean really studied it and not just read the bible once or twice, or any of it at all?
@makeyouryear: That sounds witty, but it's a glib and fallacious argument.
For starters, the analogy is false. The equivalent would be something like, 'You don't disprove Christianity by watching a sermon.'
And second, disproving Christianity requires dismantling its foundational historical claims, all of which are recorded in the New Testament.
@Ford Prefect: I'll take witty with thanks. Your example sounds more like a plain rebuttal. Analogies tend to compare different things, e.g. the brain is like a computer.
My mistake was using the word disprove instead of prove. I don't think you can disprove Christianity because to my mind religion is generally unfalsifiable.
@makeyouryear: Thanks for your reply.
Actually, Christianity is uniquely theoretically falsifiable because it's founded on specific historical claims that can be examined, tested, and potentially disproven. It's why I keep asking commenters here for their reasons for dismissing it as false; and, who knows? One day, just maybe, one of the 'magic sky daddy' pejoratives will be backed by some semblance of analysis of the historical and other evidence, but I certainly won't be holding my breath.
@No Client List: The poor little zealot is upset lol
Put down your collection of 2000 year old fantasy stories for a few minutes, get yourself a dictionary, and look up what “hate speech” is. Because telling you you’re deluded ain’t it, guy
@dwarves: saying "you and your kind" probably qualifies though, so be very careful what you write in public.
And don't be so zealously anti-Christian, live and let live and all that.
@No Client List: yet more delusion lol
poor little baby thinks he’s being persecuted because someone dares not to believe in his Magical Sky Man lololol
@dwarves: Presumption, after presumption, after presumption….have I even said I'm a Christian, or believe anything religious?
If you want to debate old Greek or old Hebrew translated into English, or compare what the Old Testament (Torah) says with the New Testament go ahead, but don't resort to lazy, ad-hominem attacks, it's not very Christian behaviour.
A person as a believer or non-believer can still be interested and read (to make yourself less ignorant) about lots of different religions, and enlighten yourself as to why they believe it.
Try it, it might make you a more tolerant, less judgmental soul.
Is it "misinformation" to write a commentary on other ancient texts like the Babylonian myths?
Feel free to ignore and move on (or block these posts from now on) but I don't think the negative vote is appropriate.
If you have been alive for the last 40 years you will see how Revelation can be very "informative".
This new testament book condones slavery and the dominance of men over women.
A Secular Critique of Ephesians: Understanding its Challenges
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/blog.cgi?ns_a…
new testament book condones slavery
Maybe, if you twist what is actally said…
Oh dear JV is a theologian as well. What can't why do.
If you have no clue about "context" because that's too big a concept, then yeah, sure it does.
The NT never says slavery is good or ideal. It gives advice to people already in slaves, and gives pretty practical advice on how to win their evil owner over.
When a text in the NT does actually address owners, it tells them to receive slaves not as "slaves", but as brothers. It also tells slaves to, if possible, get out of slavery. It also condemns people who create slaves.
If you could show me the but where the NT condemns slavery, I would be interested to read it.
To the contrary, the NT endorses all the rules of the OT so, perhaps in my flawed understanding, that means the OT slave stuff carries over to the NT?
@Crow K: Have you ever looked into OT slavery? I just happened to be reading a bit last night. After serving 6 years, a slave was free to leave and was setup to make their own life. Seems like a pretty good deal for someone unemployed actually. But they could choose to remain a slave, so obviously being a slave wasn't necessarily bad.
I think slave is a triggering word people associate with African slaves in America.
After serving 6 years, a slave was free to leave and was setup to make their own life
Some of the male slaves were, sure. Not all of them, and I note the women aren't getting a mention. There were also special rules that trapped the foreign slaves (who are explicitly mentioned by God as groups to be enslaved).
Seems like a pretty good deal for someone unemployed actually
Not sure if this is a dumb or a horrific take to say that being enslaved for any period of time as someone's property is a "pretty good deal". Labelling the alternative (not being taken as slaves) as "unemployed" is just disingenuous trash, though.
, so obviously being a slave wasn't necessarily bad.
Yuck, this is garbage. No more garbage, please.
@Crow K: Do you actually know what you're talking about? We're talking about people who weren't making it on their own, given an opportunity to work for food, shelter, and make something of themselves. They were then given the opportunity to go out and make a life for themselves - and perhaps provide the same opportunity for others.
@SlickMick: No, you could be a boatbuilder in a neighbouring land and enslaved, and that was that, you were now someone else's property to be inherited by their children on the owners desrh.
You weren't "unemployed" or "looking for shelter" or any of that "maybe slavery isn't so bad" shameful cope. Your entire life and choices up to that point were cancelled out and you became a permanent piece of property, of a fellow human being.
Slavery is terrible and you can't come up with enough or any "what if" edge cases to make it less so.
(I note with interest the option of the people actually being employed as fellow humans is apparently not an option to consider to end the "unemployment" you've imagined as part of your analysis. Why not just give people jobs they can leave whenever they want? Why jump to justifying slavery?)
someone else's property to be inherited by their children on the owners desrh
Got any facts to support this? I'm interested to learn, but this doesn't gel with what I was reading last night.
Whereas everything I said is straight from scripture, and I haven't heard anyone try to refute it.
@SlickMick: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
@Crow K: Thanks.
Firstly, I think it's fair to say that God played favorites with Israelites (though his punishments were pretty severe if they weren't obedient). So yes, I was looking at Israelite slavery which clearly was distinct from foreign slavery.
God expected Israelites to be role models. So my question is, what was going on at the time, that would make what you quoted be considered exemplary. The commentary I read said this:
"At first glance, this might seem troubling to our modern sensibilities, as it appears to condone the ownership of human beings.
However, we must interpret these verses within their historical and cultural context. In the ancient world, slavery was a common practice, and it was often brutal and dehumanizing. The regulations found in the Mosaic Law aimed to provide some level of protection and humane treatment for foreign slaves within Israel.
When we consider Exodus 21:16, which prohibits the kidnapping of individuals to be sold into slavery, we can see that the Bible was concerned with preventing the worst forms of exploitation. Slavery in Israel was often a means for foreigners to find refuge and sustenance within the community, although it still carried a significant power imbalance.
Furthermore, it is important to note that these regulations were given at a time when the Israelites were surrounded by nations that practiced slavery without any such restrictions. In a way, these laws may have represented a more compassionate approach compared to the prevailing practices of the time."
So it sounds like it might not have been so far from Israelite slavery after all. I understand that Israel had a way of allowing a foreigner to become an Israelite, or live amongst them, maybe this is related. "You can come, but once you join us, you can't go back." I'm just spit balling here.
But that commentary went on "In Leviticus 25:46, we see the concept of inheritance in relation to slaves. This means that foreign slaves could become part of an Israelite household and share in the blessings and responsibilities of the family. While this may not justify the institution of slavery, it does reflect a certain degree of integration and care for the well-being of slaves within Israelite society." which isn't quite the way I read it, so I don't know whether what this person is saying is accurate.
But I will look into it further, so thanks for the prompt.
But that commentary went on "In Leviticus 25:46, we see the concept of inheritance in relation to slaves. This means that foreign slaves could become part of an Israelite household and share in the blessings and responsibilities of the family.
Yes, by that human being being enslaved and becoming an inheritable piece of property, they "got to" become part of an Israelite household, regardless of their feelings on the matter.
Yayy!
This is what religion does to your brain. "Why are these people focussing on the BAD parts of slavery, why can't they see the context of the time that means it was morally correct??"
I think slave is a triggering word people associate with African slaves in America.
This. Plenty of people aren't smart enough to understand that the same word can mean different things, especially across contexts.
@mickeyjuiceman: Maybe they're smart enough to know that slavery in America was specifically endorsed by Christians using the Bible, and its verses on slavery, as "proof" of God's will, which is why the pro-slavery Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest Christian organization in the U.S., because that was the literal reason why they came into existence, because they wanted to do slavery and the Bible says you can do slavery.
The reason people are "triggered" by the fact slavery happened in America last century is the Bible created the moral authority to do so.
But hey, maybe they wouldn't have if you'd given them a stern look and told them they weren't smart enough to understand how ancient time slaves had a different context to modern slaves.
@Crow K: I think you're very confused if you think the NT endorses all the rules of the OT. Several books explicitly say laws of the OT are no longer applicable. To use very easy examples, this would include Sabbath laws and dietary laws.
1 Corinthians 7:21 onwards is a very clear expression that slavery is not the ideal.
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings."
Here we have not just advice to people in slavery on how to act, but also a command to not become a slave (if possible) and also to get out of slavery (if possible).
The harsh reality for many of these early Christians is that slavery was not something that could be exited by Roman law. Roman slave owners had rights to kill their slaves if they rebelled. That's why the NT is very careful to not get people killed, and instead advises to win their owners over by love.
I think you're very confused if you think the NT endorses all the rules of the OT.
Hmm, okay, let's see what the NT has to say about the rules of the OT.
In Matthew 5:19, someone says this about the rules of the OT:
"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."
Mind you, this "Jesus" fellow I was quoting directly might not be a good example of someone to speak with authority in the NT, maybe one of your other references is a bit of a better source?
If so, I guess that meant this "Jesus" fellow could be making a mistake or perhaps even lying when he said that. Hmm. I'd be definitely be interested to hear your thoughts on whether he got that wrong, if that's the case.
Several books explicitly say laws of the OT are no longer applicable.
Okay, let's hear them say so explicitly, I guess.
1 Corinthians 7:21 onwards is a very clear expression that slavery is not the ideal.
God can take the time to tell people eating shellfish is a sin and forbidden, but when it comes to slavery we first condone it and then later have to look sideways at some NT passages and conclude the "vibe" of it is "slavery isn't the best thing", huh. This smells like dogshit. Why won't Jesus, who is God, admit slavery is immoral and it was wrong to allow it?
Here we have not just advice to people in slavery on how to act, but also a command to not become a slave (if possible) and also to get out of slavery (if possible).
Avoid slavery, hey? Well only a divine power could come up with a solid idea like that (while still not actually opposing it). Any other pearls of wisdom from the all-knowing God while we are here? Don't touch red hot stoves?
Matthew 5:19
I don't know where you're going with this. The OT never commanded anyone to take slaves. No one is violating an OT law by not taking a slave.
You should have led with your shellfish line, coz that was a legit question. The early church did struggle with "are we supposed to keep the law or not??"
The answer was: you don't have to be Israelite to be Christian, and Gentiles are under no obligation to keep law, thus no, it couldn't possibly be necessary to keep the law.
You seem to want God to hold His people to an even higher standard than he already does? They couldn't live up to what He did expect of them, but you reckon he should have required a higher standard??
I'm really glad He makes the rules and not you.
The answer was: you don't have to be Israelite to be Christian, and Gentiles are under no obligation to keep law, thus no, it couldn't possibly be necessary to keep the law.
Oh, if you want to know what Christ himself thought on that, you should go read some Matthew 5:19, where the big J tells you to keep those laws. Of course that would require you to read the actual Bible as opposed to a commentary on it, but there's a first time for everything.
The OT never commanded anyone to take slaves. No one is violating an OT law by not taking a slave.
The "God permitted and made the rules by which slaves must be kept but he didn't insist you do it" argument is probably just as bad a flavour of dogshit as "but maybe slavery wasn't so bad" apologist line of thought. This is not something to be proud of.
I'm really glad He makes the rules and not you.
My zero tolerance stance for slavery is on the record, you don't need to remind us why you prefer it His way.
@Crow K: I'd have thought you'd be glad that Israel was making slavery less bad.
What about punishment? Do you reckon God was too severe with His punishments when the Israelites went off track?
I'm trying to imagine how things would have turned out with a zero-tolerance God. I think the world would be a better, but quieter place.
I'd have thought you'd be glad that Israel was making slavery less bad.
"Making slavery less bad" is the same as making rape or murder "less bad". It's the playground for apologists who rely on things they don't understand to be their moral compass. It's based on the false premise that these things are necessary in the first place.
Like I said before, your arguments for why slavery wasn't so bad was "well at least they aren't unemployed" and your brain totally skipped the "okay why don't you offer them jobs instead of enslaving them" step.
You are incapable to exploring the morality of these ideas until you read what God has said first, and that's a little bit pathetic, a little bit terrifying and a little bit sad.
@Crow K: "If so, I guess that meant this "Jesus" fellow could be making a mistake or perhaps even lying when he said that. Hmm. I'd be definitely be interested to hear your thoughts on whether he got that wrong, if that's the case."
Actually, "these commandments" refers to the sermon Jesus is about to give. In the book of Matthew, Jesus explicitly gets rid of or changes at least 3 laws (dietary, divorce and Sabbath), and implies to change a whole lot more.
I understand that Internet atheists are taught to read "I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them" as "Every single Old Testament law must still apply for Christians", but it's just incorrect. No scholar thinks this is the theology of the book of Matthew, even secular ones.
"God can take the time to tell people eating shellfish is a sin and forbidden, but when it comes to slavery we first condone it and then later have to look sideways at some NT passages and conclude the "vibe" of it is "slavery isn't the best thing", huh. This smells like dogshit. Why won't Jesus, who is God, admit slavery is immoral and it was wrong to allow it?"
You asked me where the NT condemns slavery. I gave you a passage which deals with it and tells people to not become slaves. That's not a "vibe".
There's plenty in the OT laws that Christians consider immoral. The OT laws allowed for kings, divorce, polygamy, slavery. They are not God's true moral standard. That is to be found in Christ.
"Avoid slavery, hey? Well only a divine power could come up with a solid idea like that (while still not actually opposing it). Any other pearls of wisdom from the all-knowing God while we are here? Don't touch red hot stoves?"
Love your neighbour as yourself.
You're angry. I get it. I used to be on the other side. But it really isn't as simple as you think it is. The Bible is not meant to be picked up and read today while ignoring it's context. It takes time to understand it. If you don't want to put in that time, that's fine, but you can't also act like you know that it teaches.
God bless you man. I'm happy to answer any more questions, but only if you drop the antagonistic attitude. There's enough angry redditor "enlightened" atheists online these days. It doesn't need one more.
You asked me where the NT condemns slavery. I gave you a passage which deals with it and tells people to not become slaves. That's not a "vibe"
So God can take the time to say you can't eat shellfish and you must kill witches, but he can't drop a hard "you mustn't own slaves", it's instead "oh if you as humans can help it, try not to become a slave, I am making no stance on whether slavery itself is okay"
God is vibe coding. That's not a condemnation, and that certainly doesn't "deal with it".
We have dozens of passages of God condemning and forbidding things in plain language. Go fetch me the one where he condemns slavery on these same terms or conceed the point.
The Bible is not meant to be picked up and read today while ignoring it's context
If there's "context" to explain how an all powerful and all good being will permit slavery to exist as a morally acceptable act, I'd love to hear it. I've heard a few incredibly weak attempts so far (but what if they wanted shelter??), but have a pop at it.
There's plenty in the OT laws that Christians consider immoral. The OT laws allowed for kings, divorce, polygamy, slavery. They are not God's true moral standard. That is to be found in Christ.
So, toss the OT rules including the Ten Commandments because that's misguided OT God who has rules Not For Us but keep Jesus's teachings? Actual God is wrong, but Jesus (who is God) is right? Does that make sense?
@Crow K: "So God can take the time to say you can't eat shellfish and you must kill witches, but he can't drop a hard "you mustn't own slaves""
You're confusing texts that were written thousands of years apart.
The ancient Israelite laws clearly allowed slavery. It also allowed polygamy. The purpose of these laws weren't to overwrite ancient economy or society. It was to establish the nation as distinct, and to start moving them towards God's ways. It was not a total reboot of humanity, from a Christian perspective.
Your point here would have more force with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi or something, but Christianity has an explanation for why it's this way.
"If there's "context" to explain how an all powerful and all good being will permit slavery to exist as a morally acceptable act, I'd love to hear it. I've heard a few incredibly weak attempts so far (but what if they wanted shelter??), but have a pop at it."
Slavery isn't morally accepted. It's always been a sin. It isn't instituted in the creation passages and it only pops up later through force and hurt.
Your category for thinking about this is entirely incorrect. You've been taught very well by years of atheist online arguments. At least try to see it from another perspective.
"So, toss the OT rules including the Ten Commandments because that's misguided OT God who has rules Not For Us but keep Jesus's teachings? Actual God is wrong, but Jesus (who is God) is right? Does that make sense?"
This is a prime example of deliberately trying to not understand me. This isn't even close to what I've said.
If that's literally the best you can do to summarise my point, then I don't see any point in continuing.
If you can show good faith and summarise my position as I've explained, we can continue.
Go for it!
If you can show good faith and summarise my position as I've explained, we can continue.
Well, my point has been
"Okay here's what the actual Bible is saying"
and your point has been
"well Christian scholars have decided that's not what it means, at least not all the time, and now it's a pick-and-mix and we can quote the bits that make us feel warm and fuzzy and if someone mentions a bit from the Bible we don't like we tell them they didn't understand the context, obviously the Christian scholars are the authority on the Bible, not the Bible itself".
Given Christian Scholars don't hold a unifying view on how the Bible is to be interpreted (some say Matthew 5:19 includes the OT, some say it doesn't), we have a pick-and-mix selection of scholars who in turn have a pick-and-mix selection of which verses are the right ones.
And that's why appealing to Christian Scholars doesn't work.
@Crow K: "well Christian scholars have decided that's not what it means, at least not all the time, and now it's a pick-and-mix and we can quote the bits that make us feel warm and fuzzy"
Swing and a miss.
My own fault for thinking Internet atheists are capable of putting down their biases for literally one minute to accurately represent a different view.
Have a good day mate.
@LuthLexor: What if I found someone to tell you that I actually did accurately recount your argument, then you could choose to believe them over my own words
@Crow K: I wouldn't believe them either, because the idea that I said anything close to your quote is objectively wrong.
I gave multiple examples of how Jesus in the gospel of Matthew changes Torah laws.
He straight up says to disobey them in Matthew 19, being given as a "concession because their hearts were hard". He says following the Torah law on divorce as stated in Deuteronomy is sin.
You summarise this as "pick-and-mix and we can quote the bits that make us feel warm and fuzzy".
Therefore, you're not dealing with reality. You're pushing your own biases. It's what your kind does. You're so angry and against religion that you cannot think objectively for just one minute. You're so confident that you're correct that you're (seemingly) unable to actually understand what someone else is saying.
I promise you, I have better things to do with my time. Like scour this site for fantastic bargains :)
"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am englightened by my intelligence"
You're pushing your own biases. It's what your kind does.
The irony gave me the smallest of smiles, but that aside you need to take all your "internet atheist reddit person" ad hom shit and put in the toilet where it belongs if you want to pretend you're arguing in good faith.
@Crow K: Promise this is the last reply. You can have the last word.
"you need to take all your "internet atheist reddit person" ad hom shit and put in the toilet where it belongs if you want to pretend you're arguing in good faith"
Mate, I gave you concrete examples and I explained exactly why your summary was wholly inaccurate. So it's not an ad hom.
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're an Internet atheist.
I'm saying you've unfortunately proven the stereotype and brought the receipts.
You're wrong because I gave exact examples and you summarised it as me just wanting to "feel nice".
There's honestly not too much anyone can do at this point. You've completely shut down the conversation.
Congrats, I guess?
God bless 🙂
Show me on the doll where Christianity hurt you
I had to laugh at this post because lots of people could point exactly where on the doll it hurt them
That kind of thing usually happens under a more specific guise (such as Catholic, or Anglican etc), I’m sad to say.
@WhyAmICommenting: So only the majority of so-called Christian denominations in Australia then. Think before you parrot memespeak if you're serious about defending your own dogma.
I was molested by a medical doctor, which is why I know only homeopathy is true medicine.
I was also molested by an atheistic local business owner, which is why I know communism is the superior social order.
There are quite a few grown up ex Catholic kids who you probably shouldn't ask this to
His name was Father (Name redacted) from St (Name redacted) Cathedral
It isn't Christianity that hurt them, it's pedo men dressed up in a frock who can't control their perversion.
Also happens in the Cubs & Scouts, sports clubs, kindie, care homes etc, wherever there's children.
Nothing wrong with the snake pit, you can get bitten by a snake just about anywhere
@makeyouryear: John Howard and Tony Abbot wrote personal character references for members of the clergy in Aus that were later convicted of molesting kids.
Not sure why Christianity gets beat up so much about pedos, athiest politicians, teachers, and plenty of other members of secular organizations have been molesting kids for yonks.
In fact, race, creed, religion, etc, are all poor indicators of whether someone is likely to be a child abuser. The main indicator is it happens in situations where adults are alone with kids.
@ssfps: Howard and Abbott fact not at all surprising. My point was that suggesting this happens "wherever there's children" seems like a false equivalence.
Point is, I think many adherents would regrettably agree that Christianity being the poster child for child abuse has a very firm basis in fact.
It's more than being alone with children, it's about a power imbalance. Being 'tight' with an omnipotent being projects a power disparity hard to match.
I sympathise with the majority who pursue religion to cultivate Bodhichitta, as I do with police officers whose only motivation is to serve their communities.
It's not about adherents or religions; it's about the kinds of control structures they create which empower bad people to do bad things.
@makeyouryear: Not "wherever there's children", but pedos are going to be attracted to anywhere there is uncontrolled access to children.
And not "Christianity" in particular, but any organisation that gives this opportunity. Ironically, the only church I have any experience was pretty protective, not just of children, but also teens and even adults putting themselves in potentially compromising positions.
There are a couple of religions that require celibacy - I suspect that doesn't help. But apart from that, a religious organisation is no more likely than a school, scout association, sporting club etc etc that doesn't have adequate controls.
@SlickMick: You mention schools - I use to work at a boarding school where several kids were molested. They installed floor to ceiling glass walls on all the admin rooms in both wings after that…
@ssfps: >boarding/ private school
Exactly — That's the homo-environment where a hell a lot of older priests and clergy lived/ were exposed to as children and has a lot to answer for when they become "celibate" adults.
(same applies to judges, high ranking police, civil servants, politicians, service men, lords, etc)
Good news if they are finally trying to stamp out what has gone on for a very long time between boys - boys and boys - staff in these un-natural, all-male institutions.
Christianity being the poster child for child abuse has a very firm basis in fact.
This should be the poster child of false equivalences. You even agree that it's the control structures and not intrinsic to the religion. Control structures which have been diminishing in the church for centuries and which have been growing stronger in secular organisations.
It's not about adherents or religions; it's about the kinds of control structures they create which empower bad people to do bad things.
Yes, on this we can agree.
My point was that in most situations where an adult is alone with a kid, there is that inherent power imbalance. Yes, doctors, priests, politicians, etc, might be seen to be more likely 'above reproach' and thus a greater power unbalance than a regular shmuck, but that's not counter to my original point, and doesn't suggest something inherent to catholic clergy to be causing the abuse.
Anecdotally, of the various child abuse scandals i'm aware of, while the church has seen more popularized scandals, the most disgusting have actually been by judges and educators. For example: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-judge-garry-neils…
This guy use to send other convicted incestuous child molesters back home to the families, to continue the abuse.
@makeyouryear: Those in Cubs & Scouts, sports clubs, kindie, care homes etc weren't necessarily Catholic or Anglican or whatever. What is this snakepit they all come from?
Unfortunately, it is still a bargain and fits the scope of this website. So I don't think this is a valid negative vote?
I put the disclaimer "NB: This is a Christian book publisher" right at the top so if you don't want to engage feel free to move on, but invalid neg votes won't help anyone see the actual value in this deal.
Still can't believe in this day & age people can be so gullible/ignorant. 🤷
Even if you believe in God, you need to believe science, as God created that too, no?
So what you're saying is you don't believe even with physical evidence.
Weird stance…
Could say the same about you…
You don't know the half of it.
I can't believe in this day & age a person can't just pass by a deal they aren't interested in.
… and could be so ignorant as to think that anyone who doesn't see things their way must be gullible/ignorant.
Do you believe in fairy tales?
Do I believe that fairy tales exist? Yes, I've seen a lot of evidence, I am totally convinced.
Do you?
I first read this as 'introducing the Epsteins', which if you think about it would make a great sitcom.
It'd be the worst sitcom ever.
9 cameras won't work at all, 1 camera will have it's footage deleted, and 1 camera will be missing a minute of climatic footage, leaving us hanging.
🤣🤣
Trump would be the editor, Epstein (still alive?) would be the producer, and Mossad the distributor.
👏👏👏 well done
It would have similar themes to a show about the Catholic Church as well
here's some good ones for the intellectually honest believers
https://www.logos.com/product/216344/jesus-interpreted-bened…
https://www.logos.com/product/47205/revisiting-the-corruptio…
https://www.logos.com/product/205050/can-we-trust-the-bible-…
https://www.logos.com/product/199566/jesus-interrupted-revea…
https://www.logos.com/product/200839/how-jesus-became-god-th…
https://www.logos.com/product/241761/the-text-of-the-new-tes…
https://www.logos.com/product/2190/a-textual-commentary-on-t…
![[eBook] Free: Introducing Ephesians By Simon Austen (Was US$4.99) @ Logos](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/42/944442.jpg?h=21e44b89)
doobes on 16/01/2026 - 10:02 Comment score below threshold.
