Over the past month I have destroyed Christian arguments. One by one, they stop discussing with me. Some are honest and end up saying, “well I really can’t answer this anymore, I just don’t know,” while others simply scatter like rats escaping the light of day.
Today I came across an anti-gay video of a christian group on YouTube. One commentator said the following:
“This whole debate boils down to whether you believe in what the bible says or not. If you do, then you’ll agree with Piper, otherwise go with the flow. My personal opinion is to agree with him, but I want to emphasize that this doesn’t justify any kind of hate towards anyone. You may disagree with or hate their acts, but Jesus teaches us to always love and wisely serve everyone as they are.”Commentator on anti-gay video on YouTube
But this is the problem, you don’t know the bible. Nor do you have a grasp on reason and logic.
You can logically stand on almost anything, but the logic has to at least be true to itself. For example, if a man said, “the sky is orange, but the sky reflected in the mirror is blue,” that would be illogical as both the sky and its reflection share the same color.
Every argument a person poses, is applicable to every situation of similar context. If a person says, “god said that if you did sin X then you should die, that’s why i’m against sin X,” Well other sins are covered in the same passages? X is a variable, and the evangelical will throw in “witchcraft,” “same gender relationships,” and so on… but what of the other sins? The bible says that rebellion is a sin, yet America was founded on it. Are you against America’s foundation? Working on the Sabbath was a sin deserving death, do you also agree it’s wrong today?
Another logical fallacy of the christian, is that they refuse to start at a good starting point. If I were to tell you about a man on trial for murdering thousands, but you thought this man was a good man, a holy man…. no matter how much data or evidence I provide, you will refuse to accept it. You will run from the truth and hide in the feelings and goosebumps you have about this man. You may even start constructing fiction that those people deserved to die, or perhaps that they never existed before… or even suggest that “death isn’t so bad.” Such a person could never be on a jury, as they are not able to think clear enough to cast a judgement.
In order to investigate the faith you must be willing to accept it’s errors. You are free to believe in a spiritual path, free to accept whatever deity you wish, but if your dogma judges others, and yourself, but you hide and obscure the judgements you don’t like and raise the ones you do like, then you’re really nothing more than a hypocrite.
What’s in the Bible
If you say, “I”m with Paul, and therefore against being gay”: then are you with Paul when he inverts the teachings of Jesus in 2nd Thess. 3:10? Paul says there, “if a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat.” Yet Jesus says in Matthew 25:35-46, that if you do not feed the hungry, or invite the stranger in, it is as though you didn’t do it to him, and you will be cast into eternal darkness. How about Paul’s views of women? Paul says that women are to be silent, hold no position over a man. Women were not to braid their hair, or wear jewelry. Do you agree with that?
How about Paul’s views on Roman slavery? Turn to Ephesians 6:5, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
Enter the apologist
If you wait long enough and apologist will come along and spin up a yarn about Paul’s views on women, on slaves and so on. But none of these turn out to be true. I’ve heard that Paul was speaking of “one female false teacher,” and yet that’s not what we read about. He has very generic rules for women (women, not a specific woman). 1 Timothy 2:9-15 The apologist will poo-poo roman slavery saying “it wasn’t that bad.” While a person could buy their way to freedom, the roman slave was treated as non-human and often abused. This wasn’t a butler. This was a literal slave, who had no rights. “Unlike Roman citizens, they could be subjected to corporal punishment, sexual exploitation (prostitutes were often slaves), torture and summary execution. Over time, however, slaves gained increased legal protection, including the right to file complaints against their masters.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome)
Either you must accept Paul for everything or for nothing. The Christian apologist attempts to say, “well paul was right on being gay, but he was wrong on slavery. That was because of paul’s culture that he felt that way.” Well how does such a one know his views on being gay aren’t represented by his culture as well? Once you start with opinion, and fiction, everyone can jump in and make paul whatever they want. Often the apologist will at this point say, Paul reflects the will of a god who is the same “yesterday, today and forever,” then reference the Old Testament law.
This is where the christian dips into the old testament to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the law to kill people who were in same gender relationships. However, once you open this door it isn’t easily closed. You know who else was killed under “god’s law?” Here’s a list:
- Men who worked on the Sabbath. (Exodus 31:14-15)
- Killing children of the enemy (Numbers 31:14-18)
- Killing children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9)
- Killing the daughter of a high priest who is having sex outside marriage (Leviticus 21:9)
- Killing women thought to be witches (Exodus 22:18)
Enter the Apologist
The apologist will enter into this fray and say, “well now the stuff against being gay is right, but the stuff you just quoted is not right because of complexities.” The apologist produces a bunch of arguments that seem to lack the feel for the bible they peddle door to door:
- Argument 1: god can kill anyone he pleases, he’s god. (the villain argument)
- Argument 2: numbers 31 is about midians who were vile people. they were going to sacrifice children anyway (hidden premise being, they deserved to die since they may have been sacrificed anyway)
- Argument 3: numbers 31 is about killing children who may one day rebel against Israel.
- Argument 4: we think death is a big deal, but really it’s not. common concepts of morality just don’t get it.
- Argument 5: god is jealous so that’s why he ordered the killing of other faiths (the villain god argument)
- Argument 6: god made those rules for the people, not because of himself. The people (israelites) were so bad he had to have such harsh laws. These laws don’t apply to us.
All of these arguments are logically false. The people who speak them, don’t even believe in them. When you make a statement, it needs to apply logically to every similar situation. If your argument is, “they midian children were killed because they were dead already,” then would you believe that today? When the police rescues human trafficked children, do you think they should be executed or abused as they are already (or going to be) “damaged?”
When someone says, “well you must understand that the midians drew first blood… (hidden premise being, they deserved to have their children killed)” then what of germany after wwii? Nazi Germany killed more Jewish people than the Midians ever killed of the Israelites. Would you support execution of all male german children? Would you support all german women (post wwii) to be killed if they are not virgins? Of course not. Logically not every child or woman conspired with nazis. The bible didn’t make this analysis. It is assumed every woman, every child was guilty of the deeds of others.
When someone says, “well the law of god is not a reference to an evil god, but to the evil people. god had to make harsh law due to lawlessness and these laws no longer apply to us, since we are not Israelites.” Then let’s analyze this a bit.
Logically they are saying: A leader’s laws, no matter how harsh, do not reflect upon the leader but upon the people themselves. Is that logical? Think about historic tyrants, Stalin, Hitler, ISIS… Couldn’t such a defense also be used to defend their harsh laws? You could in fact defend ISIS and their harsh laws with such logic! Therefore the argument is false, as we know that defending tyrants and blaming the people, is like defending the rapist because his victim deserved it – it’s faulty logic at best.
If a person wades into the Old Testament to defend a case against one sin, then the entire old testament comes into focus… laws that would say your working on Sunday is worthy of death, or a woman not a virgin on her wedding night was worthy of death. But this a rational person won’t agree with today. So again, do you accept it all, or reject it all?
By your own bible it is all sourced from the “same god” who is the same yesterday as he is today. So it all is still his views and beliefs.
Basically, Christianity is a pick and chose religion. each denomination/christian picks the verses they are compatible with, and ignore the rest. When those ignored verses come under scrutiny, then they run for cover. Some will claim that there’s a reason for the inconsistency, only their logic calls apart as it can’t be applied outside of one use case that is very specific. This makes their argument brittle and easily destroyed.