So
here's the thing. Some may wonder why I "waste" time debating
Christians, especially in matters of the Bible. They don't get why I do
it.
One of the biggest issues with theocrats is misuse of said Bible in justifying their policy (anti-LGBTQI+, issues surrounding poverty, the so-called "bathroom bills" etc). If I can pick apart their argument based solely on their book, I can hopefully demonstrate the absurdity of said policy. Leaving them to argue for a secular and hopefully factual POV (neither of which happens in regards to everyday folk).
Case in point, a recent debate. Dudeski's talking points taken to their root where ALL Reich Wing. Sources (as I recognized material being "cited" w/o dudeski actually citing) were all based in religious ideology, therefore no real secular argument was left other than what would boil down to the "ick factor".
While there where other issues involved in the above example,the following demonstrates the point even further. This guy had no fucking clue what his book said. Being able to approach an argument from both sides is a nice tool to have (former theist now atheist - you do not forget what was ingrained into your brain.) This conversation was solely from a religionist perspective.
Note::Although not an issue in this conversation, I generally will not argue from the POV that Christ never existed or a mythicist position (caveats apply). I solely argue from the adversaries position that Christ existed and claims of the various authors are true. I do this for 5 reasons: 1] most don't even know what the book says, 2] there are contradictions (Jesus v Paul) and discrepancies, 3] my Greek and Hebrew are strong enough to battle from that angle, 4] my former education 3 1/2 yrs, while incomplete from an academic standpoint, was heavy on hermeneutics and interpretation. (While I loathe to argue from that POV, I'm sorry but I am pretty sure I know what to-e-bah taken to its root means compared to some armchair apologists. IOWs I am fairly confident in my knowledge and have no problem admitting I am wrong.) 5] I acknowledge there are different interpretations of a given passage within the bible (why I try to ground my interpretation in sound hermeneutics) BUT,,, that is part of the overall issue, "if god why the discrepancies in interpretation?" There should not be any,,, and round and round we go :)
Notice dude did not address my question, if god authored the bible why the various sects and doctrinal differences? You would think that and all powerful god would makes his wants know in a manner ALL could understand without confusion.
While many find citing scripture to an atheist redundant, I choose to argue from their book as many Christians 1] don't know what its says, or 2] don't accept an alternative interpretation. IOWs they ignore the context of the passage in question.
Notice the hyper focus of his interpretation, JEWS, when clearly in context Christ was speaking of the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Again not even knowing what is written in their said holy book. 1] Paul's ministry was to the gentiles with writings to the church as a means of clarification. 2] Not understanding that Paul never met Christ while Christ was alive.
This panel speaks for itself!!
Dude never did address my initial question,,, sigh!!
One of the biggest issues with theocrats is misuse of said Bible in justifying their policy (anti-LGBTQI+, issues surrounding poverty, the so-called "bathroom bills" etc). If I can pick apart their argument based solely on their book, I can hopefully demonstrate the absurdity of said policy. Leaving them to argue for a secular and hopefully factual POV (neither of which happens in regards to everyday folk).
Case in point, a recent debate. Dudeski's talking points taken to their root where ALL Reich Wing. Sources (as I recognized material being "cited" w/o dudeski actually citing) were all based in religious ideology, therefore no real secular argument was left other than what would boil down to the "ick factor".
While there where other issues involved in the above example,the following demonstrates the point even further. This guy had no fucking clue what his book said. Being able to approach an argument from both sides is a nice tool to have (former theist now atheist - you do not forget what was ingrained into your brain.) This conversation was solely from a religionist perspective.
Note::Although not an issue in this conversation, I generally will not argue from the POV that Christ never existed or a mythicist position (caveats apply). I solely argue from the adversaries position that Christ existed and claims of the various authors are true. I do this for 5 reasons: 1] most don't even know what the book says, 2] there are contradictions (Jesus v Paul) and discrepancies, 3] my Greek and Hebrew are strong enough to battle from that angle, 4] my former education 3 1/2 yrs, while incomplete from an academic standpoint, was heavy on hermeneutics and interpretation. (While I loathe to argue from that POV, I'm sorry but I am pretty sure I know what to-e-bah taken to its root means compared to some armchair apologists. IOWs I am fairly confident in my knowledge and have no problem admitting I am wrong.) 5] I acknowledge there are different interpretations of a given passage within the bible (why I try to ground my interpretation in sound hermeneutics) BUT,,, that is part of the overall issue, "if god why the discrepancies in interpretation?" There should not be any,,, and round and round we go :)
While many find citing scripture to an atheist redundant, I choose to argue from their book as many Christians 1] don't know what its says, or 2] don't accept an alternative interpretation. IOWs they ignore the context of the passage in question.
Notice the hyper focus of his interpretation, JEWS, when clearly in context Christ was speaking of the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Again not even knowing what is written in their said holy book. 1] Paul's ministry was to the gentiles with writings to the church as a means of clarification. 2] Not understanding that Paul never met Christ while Christ was alive.
This panel speaks for itself!!
Dude never did address my initial question,,, sigh!!
No comments:
Post a Comment