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

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 […]
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”.
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.
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”.
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.