this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
729 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18082 readers
2921 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Texas State Rep. James Talarico using biblical scripture to tear down conservative Christian arguments

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] assassin_aragorn 174 points 7 months ago (15 children)

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.

[–] AngryCommieKender 135 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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/

[–] frazw 37 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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?"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] FlyingSquid 11 points 7 months ago

So their all-powerful, all-seeing god couldn't foresee the future when putting down his official laws?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Know their bible better than they do.

They interpret it selectively, just like their version of the Constitution that begins and ends with the Second Amendment.

[–] Mog_fanatic 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe 147 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Conservatives aren’t Christian. They just pretend to be so they can manipulate each other.

[–] dis_honestfamiliar 27 points 7 months ago

They want to expand that to manipulate everyone.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 7 months ago

They never have an answer when someone uses the book they’ve never actually read against them. All she could do was stand there and stutter.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Gotta love when an articpe describes something in the title, and then doesn't actually put the details of that thing in the article. The only mention of the bible in the article is "After quoting from the bible, the Democratic lawmaker said..."

Anyone know what the actual quote was?

[–] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago

Matthew 6:5 about praying in secret. Also some references to faith without works is dead and to feed the hungry and clothe the naked in reference to why there is a proposal to put the commandments in classrooms but not to do what Jesus actually calls Christians to do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 7 months ago
[–] morphballganon 51 points 7 months ago

Good, but it shouldn't have even gotten that far.

[–] LEDZeppelin 49 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

What do you call people who don’t follow the Bible?

Answer - Christians

[–] superduperenigma 50 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Jesus was a poor, brown skinned, socialist, Middle-Eastern, Jewish, pacifist hippie who advocated for paying taxes, supporting the poor, forgiving criminals, giving your money away to charity, and practicing nonviolence all while hanging out with a bunch of other men and prostitutes.

If the second coming happened today Christians would crucify him again before the weekend was over.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Skiff 36 points 7 months ago

What do you call people who have actually read the Bible?

Atheists.

[–] cosmicrookie 45 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I thought republican Christians did not believe in the bible any more. It's too woke

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (9 children)

They're fine with the Old Testament, it's got plenty of treachery, rape, slavery and fraud cheered on by God, mixed in with smiting and destroying things that disagree with you.

They have a problem with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, which is all a bit too "someone was different to me so I made friends with them and we ate together".

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

rape, slavery

It draws an odd moral line here where a virgin prisoner of war can basically be raped for the rest of her life as a "wife" but the act of doing so makes it so the "husband" cannot sell her into slavery after leaving her.

I think the best way of summing up biblical ethics is "there's animal rights but women are the animals"

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheBat 40 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

was secretly hoping the title was literal and he just took a bible and smacked the republicans upside the head

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago

"THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS YOU!" WHACK

[–] ZMonster 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
[–] BigT54 41 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Just so you and everyone else is aware. In the link you posted, everything after the question mark is a tracking id, using the link without that part of the link works perfectly fine and reduces traceability.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

I loved how small she sounded at the end of questioning by the first guy. Then the chud in the back-right corner has to jump on and say "oh since Jesus is God, he wrote the ten commandments, don't you just feel the luuuv in them" and totally tried to give her back face after the questioning. But as the first rep said, the bill, as it's written, is arrogant and idolatrous. But she just wants to "keep it clean", and ignore every other piece of history that shows the coalition that formed to create the US.

[–] SendMePhotos 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That was awesome. I'm not anti Christian, I'm very pro even field though. The call out of hypocracy in a way that was from the source was art.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Sadly it usually doesn't work. These "Christian" Republicans wouldn't have any faith if they didn't have bad faith. They don't care what the book they supposedly follow says. They just use it as a weapon for those who supposedly believe it but have never read it for themselves.

[–] negativeyoda 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't y'all know it doesn't count if it happens in the new testament

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Isn't Jesus from the new testament?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That is what he is saying. To them Jesus doesn’t count. He’s much too nice to others. Really, they don’t care about the Bible except as a tool to abuse others so the argument in the article will not have any influence on christofacist thinking.

[–] TechyDad 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I recently read an article where pastors/priests are having this issue. They are quoting Jesus Christ and then being told by MAGA followers that they are spouting "woke liberal propaganda."

Now, you don't have to follow what Jesus said to do. I'm not Christian and so don't model my life around his teachings. But if you claim to "follow Jesus," but then want to reject what Jesus said to do because it's "too woke," then maybe you should get a different religion!

[–] doubletwist 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Funny thing is, if you take the bible and ignore the new testament, isn't that effectively Judaism?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Junk links all over the article, but none leading to the video they talk about? Journalism is dead.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ahh yes I too remember the well known and oft quoted bible passage “and then the Lord said unto him, ‘place a picture of your dingus on the wall in every room’ and then after he had said it, he laughed unto himself, saying ‘hehe I wonder if they’ll actually do it’ “

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago
[–] duckCityComplex 7 points 7 months ago

The only argument in favor if this bill seems to be that the Ten Commandments were taught in our nation's earliest schools...

Imagine all the crazy things that were taught in 18th & 19th century schools. It's just a stupid argument on its face.

load more comments
view more: next ›