Texas Democrat leaves Republicans speechless when he uses the Bible against them

https://sh.itjust.works/post/9809193

Texas Democrat leaves Republicans speechless when he uses the Bible against them - sh.itjust.works

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

Good, but it shouldn’t have even gotten that far.
Source article, rather than a re-host by yahoo: www.pride.com/…/james-talarico-ten-commandments
Watch This Texas Democrat Leave Republicans Speechless When He Uses The Bible Against Them

“I guess what I’m trying to figure out is why is having a rainbow in a classroom is indoctrination and not having the Ten Commandments in a classroom,” Texas State Rep. James Talarico argued in a now viral video.

Gay Pride - LGBT and Queer Voices
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’ “
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.
The problem with this is that would require them tonrespect rationale thought from the start, which we know isn’t the case.

I was arguing about locking immigrates in cages and separating families with a religious person and told them the verse

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.

He then told me that was a mistranslation. That foreigner really meant someone from the next town over, but not from another country.

Leviticus 19:33-34 "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Ah yes, the town of Egypt. Just a short couple of hours by horse.

40 years of wandering later
Well, it’s not like they had GPS…
More knowledge is always a good thing but religious texts can and are twisted to suit an agenda all the time. We can’t go back and ask the authors for clarification so we’re left arguing about what a person believes the text means.

But they (the right) usually quote it by removing all context and by only using snippets of the text so there’s no interpretation required, in which case it’s very easy to retort by using the same tactic or by quoting the whole passage.

Heck, just telling them that “it’s written all over the place in the Bible that only God has the ability to judge” takes care of most of their message.

True, but if you bring facts, logic, and citations to a discussion about belief and faith then all it takes is, “that’s not the interpretation I choose to believe” to end the conversation.

That just leads to another debate of who wrote the damn thing.

Hint: It wasn't God or Jesus, but it won't stop them from guessing those two first.

The earliest text in the New Testament was written around 50 years after Christ’s death. There’s no definitive account of his life because the accounts in the gospels are sometimes contradictory. It’s messy, almost like it was written by a bunch of people recounting stories they heard rather than it being the literal word of God.
From the article I'm not seeing what part of the bible they actually used against them. What did I miss?
In the video, he talks abou why he considers the bill antithetical to Christian beliefs and quotes Mathew 6:5 to bring his point home.
Matthew 6:5 - Wikipedia

Matthew 6:5-6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

It’s the foundation of his argument that Christians shouldn’t impose religion upon others but should lead by example.

As a Christian, I agree with this idea and I also find the proposed law rather silly because it’s the same kind of virtue signaling that conservatives love to accuse liberals of.

What I don’t understand is why the article considers this “standing up for LGBT+ rights”. Can anyone help me with that?

Probably Ezekiel 23:20

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.

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

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.

And their version of the Second Amendment is four words long.

If you say guns kill people one more time, I will shoot you with a gun, and you will, coincidentally, die.

<3 from the Welcome to Nightvale NRA

Right to ursine appendages
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.
And it was translated into several different languages, which would presumably affect content and context.
Confirmed. In my native language, the guy is called DJ Oetker McSnack-a-bit O’Parma. IIRC, he used to teach people about making love to their neighbors just like they’d be making love to themselves, and such…
Unfortunately, unless you also follow the Bible to a larger degree than they do, it makes you just as much of a hypocrite when you do so.

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

Answer - ::Christians::

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

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

No he wasn’t. He didn’t exist.

Most people assume he did and there’s evidence for it, but there really isn’t. It’s just an assumption that’s convenient for Christians to push. There actually is almost no historical evidence for it.

You’re currently downvoted because this assumption has been pushed very hard, and it’s not totally unfounded. I have no more reason to trust it than I do to trust that Santa was real. There’s far too much desire to create evidence for me to bother with it. I don’t believe he wasn’t real either. I just don’t entertain either idea. It doesn’t change anything whichever is true. He wasn’t the son of God regardless.

“Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1][7][8][note 1] Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#:~:t….

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

www.atheists.org/activism/…/did-jesus-exist/

Something being considered settled doesn’t really prove anything. Many thing have been considered settled and been totally wrong. If they’re settling it with insufficient evidence, then I don’t really care to believe it. If it requires a leap of faith instead of logic, then it isn’t good enough in my opinion. I’ll continue not having a belief in him existing or not.

Did Jesus Exist?

This article written by former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors Frank Zindler and is reprinted from the Summer 1998 edition of American Atheist magazine. I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length against people who try from time to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus’ contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a person as Jesus. – N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996) For most of my life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus, although certainly not a god, was nevertheless an historical personage – perhaps a magician skilled in hypnosis. To be sure, I knew that some of the world’s greatest scholars had denied his existence. Nevertheless, I had always more or less supposed that it was improbable that so many stories could have sprung up about someone who had never existed. Even in the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis, and Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they were merely deified human heroes: men and women who lived in the later stages of prehistory – persons whose reputations got better and better the longer the time elapsed after their deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I supposed, improved with age. About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded at what I didn’t find. In this article, I would like to show how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged existence of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is more reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to account for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus were a fiction than if he once were real. Burden of Proof Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some process exists. If someone claims that he never has to shave because every morning before he can get to the bathroom he is assaulted by a six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers better than a razor – if someone makes such a claim, no skeptic need worry about constructing a disproof. Unless evidence for the claim is produced, the skeptic can treat the claim as false. This is nothing more than sane, every-day practice. Unlike N. T. Wright, quoted at the beginning of this article, a small number of scholars have tried over the centuries to prove that Jesus was in fact historical. It is instructive, when examining their “evidence,” to compare it to the sort of evidence we have, say, for the existence of Tiberius Cæsar – to take up the challenge made by Wright. It may be […]

American Atheists
Conservatives aren’t Christian. They just pretend to be so they can manipulate each other.
They want to expand that to manipulate everyone.
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.
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.
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.
I thought republican Christians did not believe in the bible any more. It’s too woke

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”.

I thought that was the main difference between Christians and Jews though
Jewish tradition celebrates reason.
“reason”

The sarcastic air quotes reveal your bias towards organized religion as a whole as well as your ignorance of Jewish culture.

Science and education are a fundamental part of Jewish culture. Someone regarded as one of the smartest people in recent history is Jewish and I imagine that without his parents valuing education and science, the rest of us would still think time and space are two separate things.

Yes, there are orthodox and dogmatic Jews just like in any religion. But just because someone has a much different world view than you doesn’t mean they don’t value reason.

Yes, I absolutely fucking despise organized religion in all it’s forms. Got NO problem saying that. All organized religions are evil by definition.

doesn’t mean they don’t value reason.

… they believe in 3000 year old fairy tales. They don’t value reason any more than any other religion. Reason gets in the way.

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”

The new testament and old testament “god” are so different that sometimes I wonder if the new testament is 5% Jesus^1 hijacking an old religion to try and make something good out of it, and 95% his followers trying to make sense and reconcile what Jesus taught with the old testament.

^1 afaik it’s fairly well established that Jesus - or someone like him - existed, the big question is if they were actually a deity or not.

I think there’s definitely something in your line of thinking. In modern terms, there’s a lot retconning in the New Testament to make the books add up as a series. They spend the whole “intro” persuading you it follows a direct lineage over ~2000 years.

There’s some pretty wild “fan theories”. Some say it’s correcting the “errors”, “corruption of language over time” or “devil influence” of the older book, others say OT “YHWH” is not NT “God almighty”, but an unrelated angry local God.

They all claim “Newest is truest” - even the more controversial “later sequels”.

Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”

A former evangelical leader is sounding the alarm about the direction his religion is headed in.

The New Republic
A lot of Catholics in my hometown don’t believe the Pope is Christian anymore.

To be fair, the Bible says nothing about having to follow the pope in order to get to heaven.

In fact, one could even argue that Jesus would not have approved of such an institution, because in Matthew 23:9, he explicitly says this:

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Meanwhile, the verse that the Catholic church bases the legitimacy of the papacy on (Matthew 16:18) is far more vague:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Then they have become protestant without realizing 😂