Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 83708

One of my biggest frustrations with Liberals who call themselves Christians is that when you ask them to justify their position in scripture they cannot do it effectively and have to twist the words of scripture (And add stuff in or take away) to fit their view.

Case in point, I was debating an Anglican minister who thinks abortion is ok. So I said what's your scriptural justification? He quoted a verse that he said it said if a man hits a woman and she has a miscarriage then its a civil matter (And he claims that this means the Bible is ok with abortion) . It turns out that that verse just says if two men are fighting and one accidentally hurts the woman causing her to go into labor early then there is a fine, and one verse later it says if further mischief then life for life, eye for eye. So if the baby died, that man would be killed.

So then he said, well abortion is not forbidden in the Bible, to which I replied, oh great let's go back to enslaving african americans because that isn't directly forbidden in the Bible either.

Even after being shown all the scripture under the sun as opposition to his view he still clung to it like his view is more precious than God's word.

This is extremely frustrating because having been an atheist I understood my world view had no problem with abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage et-al, and I also understood when I became a Christian that these and much else had to change to fit the Christian path and the Scriptures.

Is there anyone else out there who experiences these frustrations? Have you got some good examples if ridiculous interpretations by liberals so they can do what they want....

tyronem , Christian Fourms 52 Comments [9/10/2011 5:40:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 67
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Spanky


9/10/2011 5:54:53 AM

Huh

If you go and look to the older (and more trustworth) versions of the Bible, it says clearly that if the fetus die it's a civil matter. It simply was changed in the KJV.

And about slavery: Yeah, the Bible condones it. Along other despicable things. And that's why we shouldn't base our legal system on it.

9/10/2011 5:55:55 AM



Actually, slavery is promoted or even endorsed even, iirc.

And got created miscarriaged, yet he forbids abortions. Fail.

9/10/2011 5:56:52 AM

Gypsin

"So if the baby died, that man would be killed." lol wut?

9/10/2011 6:01:33 AM

Arctic Knight

Did you know the Bible actually promotes liberalism?


Pro 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

Isa 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said [to be] bountiful.

9/10/2011 6:02:39 AM

Brendan Rizzo

For a moment I thought this was from an atheist. It's still not fundie because this does point out the problems with "cafeteria Christianity".

9/10/2011 6:04:03 AM

firstelder_d

Oh good, so you know there is no comment regarding abortion in the Bible, glad that's cleared up.

You know that frustration you got when showing opposition to his view? Ya that's how atheists feel with you morons all the time.

Also, I hate it when people interpret the Bible to fit their needs too.

9/10/2011 6:07:14 AM

Horus IX

Kettle. Pot. Black.

9/10/2011 6:11:39 AM

Matante

"I used to be X therefore I:
- Know everything X thinks.
- Am superior to X, having grown out of X."

Should have left out the "ex-atheist" bit, it's irrelevant and only underlines the weak commitment to truthfulness.

9/10/2011 6:32:56 AM

Kulgur

"It's still not fundie because this does point out the problems with "cafeteria Christianity". "

ALL Christianity if cafeteria Christianity. You can't accept the whole Bible, because it contradicts itself several times. You either reject it completely, or pick and choose. tyronem is no less "cafeteria" than any other Christian.


Did anyone else notice that tyronem first admitted that there was no scriptural reason to be against abortion (when he said slavery could just as well be ok), then contradicted himself by saying that "all the scripture under the sun" opposed it?

9/10/2011 6:49:04 AM

John

If the Bible had intended to outlaw abortion, why didn't it just say so? It certainly went into enough trivial detail about who you can or can't see naked and what you can or can't eat.

9/10/2011 6:53:05 AM

Zeus Almighty

"This is extremely frustrating because having been an atheist"

Amazing, innit, the number of fundies who claim to "have been an atheist?"
My guess is that after moving out of their fundie mobile home with their parents into their own mobile home, in a very brief rebellious stage in their late teens, Cletus or Bobbie Jo skipped church for three whole Sundays in a row. And in their tiny minds this is akin to "being an atheist."

"I understood my world view had no problem with abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage et-al, and I also understood when I became a Christian that these and much else had to change to fit the Christian path and the Scriptures."

Please provide documentation that atheists have more abortions than Christianists. Since atheists are such a small part of the population, their abortions alone would not support the clinics in America that perform abortions, usually as a very small proportion of the womens' health services they provide.
Also, the "no true Christian would have an abortion" excuse doesn't count. Your book says that all one has to do to join the Christie Club is mumble a few words about accepting Jesus as savior, so you cannot arbitrarily disown anyone you want to.
We already know that Christianists account for at least their fair share of divorces. Since many marriages are ended by infidelity, it's safe to assume that many of those Christianists are divorced because they were fucking around.

9/10/2011 6:55:04 AM

D Laurier

One of my biggest frustrations is with ignorant, facistic, fundamentalist, busybodys who think their bizzare additions to the bible should be accepted as cannon.

9/10/2011 7:01:17 AM

Swede

Babies younger than one month out of the womb wasn't counted as citizens according to the Bible. Probably because so many infants died; it was no use investing too much feeling into one until it had shown itself to be strong enough to survive at least one month.

There was just a fine for causing a man's wife to miscarry, because that was probably seen as stealing a potential heir from her husband. If you caused the woman to die along with the fetus, then there were harsher punishments, because now you've stolen all of the potential heirs he could have had with that woman, and he has to get himself another brood mare.

We experience frustrations with you, for picking and choosing what verses to berate us for not following.

9/10/2011 7:04:59 AM

Panz

So....how do you account for two (or is it seven) of every animal in the world fitting on a ship for 40 days?

And btw, there already is slavery in America...it's called Capitalism

9/10/2011 7:13:14 AM

Ken's cell hates passwords

The Bible is subject to personal interpretation. I'm a liberal atheist and ex liberal Christian and I've always been pro-choice. It's more likely that your desire to fit in with your new Christian community caused your political shifts.

The verses that support the pro-life view are wishy-washy and were written in an age when they believed in quickening (the fetus moving = life). Most Chrristians I know strangely use science to back up their pro-life stance: "Science has now proven that life begins at conception. There is no argument." Yet, strangely, Science is evil and the Bible is an authority in every other aspect.

Weird.

9/10/2011 7:30:11 AM

farpadokly

The point is, there is no-one who adheres strictly to every single word of the Bible. To do so would be impossible, because it contains so many contradictions and absurdities. In order to be a Christian at all and live in a civilized society, one has to maintain a moderate or liberal stance. Are the liberal Christians thereby hypocrites? I think there's a case to be made that they are. But to insist on a literal interpretation would be tantamount to calling for the implementation of a theocracy. And even people who think of themselves as fundamental Christians ignore specific rules and injunctions in the Bible, as well as specific points of doctrine.

9/10/2011 7:47:39 AM

whatever

@Brendan Rizzo
This is indeed fundy because the author is staring into a shiny mirror and does not know it. He is indulging in exactly the sort of hypocrytical behaviour of which he accuses others... this delusion being one of the hallmarks of a true fundy.

On reading the Bible, you have to cherry pick due to the Bible's many inconsistencies. To accept the whole Bible as literal you'd have to be schizophrenic.

9/10/2011 8:02:30 AM

Flah

So you're not collecting slaves like the Bible tells you to do? I can't believe you'd twist the words of scripture, not to mention add stuff or take it away, just to fit your view!

9/10/2011 8:28:01 AM

Agahnim

No true Scotsman would be a liberal!

9/10/2011 8:28:47 AM

Orion

@Panz: Oh now Panz you know that just ain't so. You can argue economic slavery all you want but in capitalism there is no legal/violent force binding you to the servitude of an organisation. Though you may be dependent, you are not compelled. You can always walk away, declare bankruptcy and unlike a feudal/slave/centrally planned economy you won't be Lanced by the nobles/shot/jailed.

9/10/2011 9:48:46 AM

nazani14



"The book of Numbers (5:12-31) provides for a trial by ordeal in cases where a man suspects his wife of adultery but has no proof. The man, being moved by a "spirit of jealousy," shall bring his wife and a "jealousy offering" to the priest, who will mix holy water with dust from the temple floor and make the woman drink it. If she has "lain with" no man but her husband, this "bitter water" will not cause "the curse," but if she is guilty of adultery, "her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot."
In other words, if she's pregnant with another man's child, the temple dust will abort it.

9/10/2011 10:02:52 AM

Nicole

All Christians ignore some parts of the Bible and twist it to fit their own agendas. No exceptions. They kinda have to, because it contradicts itself so much and it's awkwardly silent on certain issues.

9/10/2011 10:10:17 AM



Hosea 13:16
"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

9/10/2011 10:25:20 AM

The_L

Well, I heard this one hippie telling me that I should sell everything I own and give it to the POOR, of all people.

You may have heard of him. His name is Jesus of Nazareth.

9/10/2011 10:26:50 AM
1 2 3