The atheists favorite bible verses

A Christian Sceptic

Master Poster
A Christian Sceptic
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
2,288
Ha,

Got you.

Of course this isn't all atheists favorite bible verses so don't bother posting that it's not yours. And please don't post your favorite verses either. Thanks.

But I have come across atheists using these verses alot here. (And no - Darat - I won't post a link to all the examples in the forum so don't bother asking me to prove that statement)

Matthew 5:17-20 said:
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. 18I tell you the truth, 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. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same 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. 20For 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.
Click to expand...

In the cases where atheists use this it's to show that Christians need to take the Old Testament Laws literally. I'm sure you know why they would like to make that case. ;)

Now - the only place I've ever come across that teaching is here and the only people I've ever heard insist that's how to interpret those verses are atheists.

So - if you'd like to play along and take up the challenge -

Please find me some references and literature where Christians use those verses to insist that Christians must follow all the Old Testament laws literally. I'd like to read them.

Thanks.
 
Although the worm's point is valid, I should point out that my roommate in college, for example, was one who insisted that christians have to follow the old testament. I don't remember if he (and his wife) ever mentioned this quote, but they certainly did use the argument that Jesus followed the old testament, and they did say that Jesus never said to stop following the OT.

And when I say "followed the old testament" I don't just mean they followed the parts they liked and ignored the rest. No, they were strictly kosher, for example, and would not wear clothes made of mixed fibers. Moreover, they followed all of the OT rituals and observances described in Leviticus (such as the annual Feast in the Fall).

So, Christian Skeptic, there ARE christians who don't ignore the inconvenient parts of the OT. Now, I will admit these aren't your typical christians. In fact, I used to think they weren't really christians because they didn't do all the stuff we generally associate with christianity. Now, though, I realize that it wasn't that they weren't christian, it is that they weren't Paulists - I don't remember them acknowledging any of Paul's writings. But they insisted that they believed in the divinity of Jesus, and follow his teachings, which would make them christian I would think. Unless your argument is that to be christian you have to follow the teachings of Paul?
 
From personal experience, atheists seem in general to be far better informed about the contents of the Bible than Christians.....

So maybe they just have a greater knowledge of Biblical verses from which to draw from :)
 
pgwenthold said:
So, Christian Skeptic, there ARE christians who don't ignore the inconvenient parts of the OT.
Click to expand...

Never said there weren't. In fact, I said this is the only place I've heard these verses used that way. I'd love to read some Christians teachings using these verses that way and I figured since so many here insist that's the way to interpret these verses they might know of some.
 
Last edited:
A Christian Sceptic said:
Please find me some references and literature where Christians use those verses to insist that Christians must follow all the Old Testament laws literally. I'd like to read them.
Click to expand...


I doubt any will be found. Those Christians were wiped out by the Rome-based church by about the 5th century or so.

The reason that atheists bring up this passage (or, at least, the reason I do) is not that we think that Christians ought to follow the Mosaic law. Rather, the existence and ambiguousness of that passage, and the tortured logic that many Christians use to justify not following the Mosaic law (example) (another) illustrate a point we love to make: you can't just rely on the teachings of God/Jesus as a moral guide. You have to rely on your own reason, and use your reason to select from among the many teachings of God/Jesus those which make sense and apply, and reject the others. Once we have you doing that, we have removed one of the major arguments against religion: that it is a source of moral guidance.
 
I'm interested to know why you want to find Christians teaching those particular verses in the way you describe. Surely the point people are making is that Christians are choosing to ignore those particular verses, because they don't want to follow the OT laws.
 
This very argument just came up recently in the Faith leads to evil. thread.

Mobyseven (and I believe he's an atheist, but don't quote me, few folk here wear signs saying "fundy" or "semi-religious" or "atheist" . . . except TheAtheist of course . . . but I digress) put up a nice little piece on this very subject, which I find to be an excellent bit. I don't want to pigeon-hole all atheists, of even most, but Mobyseven does take the entire chapter into consideration in providing his argument. I'm not certain I agree with him entirely, but I'm not certain I disagree with him either. He and I both agree that Jesus is presenting an either/or situation, which is what is often overlooked by most folk using these verses as an argument for keeping the Old Testament laws. I don't know why that's so hard to figure out, but there it is.

The specific part that is so well reasoned is, "none of the laws Jesus then introduces contradict the old laws - in many situations he states an old law and then (far from contradicting it) he extends its application to give it a broader meaning (such as forbidding lust by extending adultery, anger by extending murder, and so on)."

The conclusion is then that Jesus wasn't denying the old laws, but had fulfilled them, and then was extending them in his little talk as cited by the entire chapter from Matthew. Which presents an interesting sticking point for the entire argument, and really leaves neither side with much ground at all.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
In the cases where atheists use this it's to show that Christians need to take the Old Testament Laws literally. I'm sure you know why they would like to make that case. ;)

Now - the only place I've ever come across that teaching is here and the only people I've ever heard insist that's how to interpret those verses are atheists.

So - if you'd like to play along and take up the challenge -

Please find me some references and literature where Christians use those verses to insist that Christians must follow all the Old Testament laws literally. I'd like to read them.
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly the point that critics of Christianity (myself included) make when we cite this passage.

If you claim to derive morality from "the Bible" (as a great many Christians claim to be able to do), then you have to explain all the abominable morality in Old Testament stories. Liberal Christians often dismiss the Old Testament (even though it still sits in their scriptural canon) by saying that Jesus taught a new way that replaced Old Testament morality.

This passage shows that (according to "the Bible") Jesus specifically said that he was not replacing Old Testament teachings.

I concede that most Christians don't adhere to this. I think they're being inconsistent.
 
My bolding.
A Christian Sceptic said:
In the cases where atheists use this it's to show that Christians need to take the Old Testament Laws literally.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say this passage says anything about whether the O.T. scriptures are to be taken literally or figuratively. I think it just says that Jesus is not declaring the O.T. moral teaching null and void--which is how many liberal Christians imagine the teaching.

For instance, in the story about the children teasing the prophet Elisha because he was bald. What moral teaching do you glean from that? Don't tease your elders, perhaps? Or don't mess with Elisha because he's got connections? Or maybe it's just a "sign" (like Jesus's miracles) meant to tell people that Elisha has supernatural powers?

I contend that if you don't have a sense of morality before reading this, you couldn't possibly get a moral teaching from it. Same with dozens of other stories where God is the author of atrocious and bloody behavior.

It's not a question of literalism--it's a question of how do you read these things at all if they're part of your divinely revealed scriptures? If they're not, then what do you do with the famous Matthew passage? Also, why do you include this stuff in your "bible" nowadays if you don't think it applies?

Christian Sceptic, I'm surprised you didn't also mention the numerous places in the Old Testament that says the O.T. teachings are forever and can never be changed.
 
ACS, do you think the meaning of this verse is ambiguous?

What would be the reason for wanting this verse to mean something other than what it appears to mean literally?

It would seem as if you and Christians like you would be looking for some escape clause for following the OT.

“Oh, no he didn’t mean what he was saying. Silly Jesus, he was a bit bad with words. I, living two thousand years after him, not being god, and knowing nothing of the translation process and the history of the bible, have a much better idea of what he really meant.”


Why is it that Christians are so eager to interpret away the obvious meaning of this verse?
Was God a horrible God back then, but saw the error of his ways?
Was the Jealous, Maniacal, Genocidal, Homophobic, Hateful God described in the OT not the real God?
Was the OT just made up, and not really inspired by God?
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
I'm interested to know why you want to find Christians teaching those particular verses in the way you describe. Surely the point people are making is that Christians are choosing to ignore those particular verses, because they don't want to follow the OT laws.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in knowing what Christians who teach this have to say.

Since there appears to be a consensus among many of the atheists here that this is the way to interpret this passage I'd like to know what Christians agree with them so I can read what they say. Oh yeah, by the way, I'd like to know what Christians who believe these verses mean what the atheists who use that verse believe it means have to say.
 
schlitt said:
ACS, do you think the meaning of this verse is ambiguous?

What would be the reason for wanting this verse to mean something other than what it appears to mean literally?

It would seem as if you and Christians like you would be looking for some escape clause for following the OT.

“Oh, no he didn’t mean what he was saying. Silly Jesus, he was a bit bad with words. I, living two thousand years after him, not being god, and knowing nothing of the translation process and the history of the bible, have a much better idea of what he really meant.”


Why is it that Christians are so eager to interpret away the obvious meaning of this verse?
Was God a horrible God back then, but saw the error of his ways?
Was the Jealous, Maniacal, Genocidal, Homophobic, Hateful God described in the OT not the real God?
Was the OT just made up, and not really inspired by God?
Click to expand...

Why is it that of all the Christian writings I've read (and it's been alot) I've yet to come across anything close to these verses being used this way except here by atheists?

But hey - find me some Christian writings teaching this and I'll study it.
 
By the way, how do you read a listing of laws figuratively? I can see you making that argument with the various "just so" stories (the creation stories, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc.).

Do you really think, for example, that these passages were written figuratively? (This is very nearly a random selection--there are immense listings of laws in the pentateuch.)

[quote="KJV Exodus 23:1-12]
1Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

2Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

3Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

4If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

6Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.

7Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

8And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.

9Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

10And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:

11But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed. [/quote]
Do you really think leaving fields fallow for the poor people every 7th year had some figurative meaning? Honestly?
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
So - if you'd like to play along and take up the challenge -

Please find me some references and literature where Christians use those verses to insist that Christians must follow all the Old Testament laws literally. I'd like to read them.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Like Joe, I take issue with the use of the word "literally".

Here's an example of Christians who believe the OT applies:
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Church#Similarities_to_Judaism

The Ethiopian church places a heavier emphasis on Old Testament teachings than one might find in the Roman Catholic or Protestant churches, and its followers adhere to certain practices that one finds in Orthodox or Conservative Judaism. Ethiopian Christians, like some other Eastern Christians, traditionally follow dietary rules that are similar to Jewish Kashrut, specifically with regard to how an animal is slaughtered.

[...]
Click to expand...

That isn't exactly what you asked for, since it doesn't cite the verse. But they do obey quite a bit of the OT.






Hold the presses!
I have a citation....

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/CU/

Another flaw in some people's understanding is that God's law did not exist until the specific time of its first mention in the Bible. This misconception leads to the equally flawed belief that the only laws applicable to New Covenant Christians are those restated in the New Testament after Christ's crucifixion. Jesus Himself dismissed this reasoning as false (Matthew 5:17-19).
Click to expand...

From the United Church of God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_God
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
Why is it that of all the Christian writings I've read (and it's been alot) I've yet to come across anything close to these verses being used this way except here by atheists?

But hey - find me some Christian writings teaching this and I'll study it.
Click to expand...

Have you considered selective reasoning due to bias from the Christian literature?

Perhaps they are twisting the interpretation to suit them, in the way you think the Atheists are. This seems likely considering the meaning of the verse seems obvious, and when you consider that surely a god's words should not require such interpretation and twisting.

You need to consider the issue outside of the circular reasoning of the christian vewpoint automatically being correct.
 
If someone says they do not take a literal interpretation of the bible, then I shall take them at face value. I do not see any reason to force an interpretation of the bible on another.

If someone says that they do not take a literal interpretation but then continue on to explain that it is "obvious" which elements are literal/figurative/historical, then I shall disagree. Do not tell me in the same breath that "the bible isn't to be take literally but only my interpretation is the true interpretation."
 
RobRoy said:
...

The conclusion is then that Jesus wasn't denying the old laws, but had fulfilled them, and then was extending them in his little talk as cited by the entire chapter from Matthew. Which presents an interesting sticking point for the entire argument, and really leaves neither side with much ground at all.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a good point, but we also need to take into consideration "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and the "the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath" where in both cases Jesus would appear to be going against what was written in Leviticus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom