Here are 11 kinds of Bible verses Christians love to ignore
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Some Bible-believing Christians play fast and loose with their sacred text. When it suits their purposes, they treat it like the literally perfect word of God. Then, when it suits their other purposes, they conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that are—inconvenient.
Here are 11 kinds of verses Bible-believers ignore so that they can keep spouting the others when they want to. To list all of the verses in these categories would take a book almost the size of the Bible; one the size of the Bible minus the Jefferson Bible , to be precise. I’ll limit myself to a couple tantalizing tidbits of each kind, and the curious reader who wants more can go to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible or simply dig out the old family tome and start reading at Genesis, Chapter I.
Tags
Who is online
473 visitors
These are not the only ones that evangelicals and others avoid
I find it interesting that you chose to use appear to be from the New American Standard Bible. Since this publication is heavily paraphrased, most traditional Christians consider it worthless and a waste of time. Give me the original English King James version any day. Ironically, the King James version was translated from the original Greek texts. In any translation, things are always lost. The verses you are quoting are slanted as can be away from their original meaning and can mean whatever somebody wants them to...
Sorry bud but the KJV is what we use, nice try
Quite the understatement.
Not to mention they ignore the logical contradictions to biblical claims and stories.
all the rules apply to those that don't show up for the weekly club meetings and don't pay the dues
It's required. If they don't ignore them it will lead to their inevitable loss of faith. Their faith is like Schrodinger's cat and the lid of the box are all the contradictions in the bible. If they ignore the box lid and leave it alone, they can assume their faith is alive and well, but if they lift the lid their faith dies and they don't know if it was dead before or if they killed it by lifting the lid...
I agree. IMO, except for the most die-hard believers (and those who are not equipped to engage in serious analysis), studying the Bible leads to irreligion.
Why are people who don't believe in God or the Bible concerned so much that others do?
I cannot speak for others but from my perspective it boils down to critical thinking. People take -as the literal word of the grandest possible entity- mere words written by ancient, fallible men with agendas that have been translated and transcribed multiple times with no original documents to even verify. Applying critical thinking: there might be a god - a sentient creator of the universe. Nobody knows if this is true or false. All the various stories and directives of gods over time should, when applying critical analysis, be viewed as the musing of men.
Why is it good to apply critical thinking here? Because people read (and are told) things expressed in 'holy' books and act on these beliefs. Sometimes for good but, demonstrably, too often for bad --- and very bad. We can discuss Catholic-Protestant bloody clashes of the 15th-17th century, the endless bloodshed dealing with Israel, the killing of people for being homosexual (or apostates), myriad horrendous acts such as genital mutilation and of course organized terrorism such as the KKK of old or modern radical Islamic terrorist groups.
People literally kill themselves based on the belief they are acting per the will of Allah. Not likely to be so eager to engage in such acts if one thinks critically and does not simply accept as truth that which some mere human being claims as such.
I respect your position but clearly disagree with it.
Which part?
For example, do you disagree with the fact that the Bible (among other holy books) is without its original sources and that what we have today is the result of transcription and translation over thousands of years by fallible men?
I understand the reason for believing that there 'must be' a sentient creator. Reality is full of mystery and it seems natural (the way our minds work) to presume a higher order sentient entity. I get that. But to accept as truth the clearly compromised words of ancient men without a shred of evidence?? All sorts of divine acts and miracles in the past yet nothing of any credibility in recorded history? And today, when we have the tools to engage in high quality verification, there is absolute silence on the divinity front. Nothing. But people still accept as truth the fantastic stories of ancient men with pens - stories that not only lack evidence but lack external corroboration.
I recognize the evils of men in religion and the good in it.
I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't believe everything in the Bible is true, but can easily accept those who might. It isn't for me to make their personal choices for them.
I also don't condemn those who don't believe, and have never tried to recruit anyone to a religion.
I judge people on their actual deeds--not their beliefs.
Certainly when it comes to judging people it makes sense to do so based on their acts. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with judging people. My comment was strictly about critical thinking as it applies to religious belief.
A great quality, but I did not even hint that you engaged in such a practice.
Can you distinguish the baby from the bathwater? How can one determine what part of the Bible (for example) is the actual word of the grandest possible entity and what part is simply words of ancient men?
Ultimately I do not see where you disagree. Your response spoke of things that had nothing to do with what I wrote. I agree with most everything you wrote, by the way, but see no tie back to what I wrote.
I tried.
Oh well.
hearsay isn't allowed in court, which is what the entire bible amounts to.
Waste of time and effort...
Thank you. That will come in real handy when I am in court.
Then why are you here
Easy tex, because they want me do what they say and believe
Have you never learned to stand up to peer pressure?
non-secular hate speech in public deserves to be called out
exclusionary bible babble in the ears of the non-submissive
I don't feel the need to. They are violating the 1st, read it again tex
I am but they aren't. Read the article. It would help you wally
You seem to have a peculiar interpretation of the Amendment.
Where again did you get your law degree?
And which court cases can you cite to back your claim up?
Got one in business law and have worked on court cases.
What degree do you have to try and interpret any amendment, or just texas school books
Please post court cases backing your claim up.
Thanks.
OMG - you mean that people will cherry-pick the pieces they want to talk about or follow and ignore the parts they don't like or find too inconvenient? Say it's not so!!!!
Yep, Man is a flawed creature.
Exactly.
Just like people who don't obey all laws all the time, right?
Religious zealots are taught to be hypocritical all their lives--ignoring reality, critical thinking, real education and the sciences are to be scoffed at, right? [deleted]
Why don't you tell us why [deleted] are hyper-fake Jesus biblethumpin' fans? (besides your typical response and obvious slight -of-hand no real excuse, "flawed creature".)
Christianity especially and it's hypocrites are a cult and have proven to be extremely dangerous (although one religious fanatical group amongst many on earth having the same traits of heresy to their beliefs.)
IF they and you actually loved the words and teachings of your Christ, why do you not live up to those teachings and words to live by?
[deleted]
First off, I am not nor ever have been a religious zealot.
So you can take that and walk the rest of your statement to me back.
Do you even know what religion I am? Or what church I attend?
Do you know anything about how I live my personal life?
Have you ever, ever seen me try to persuade anyone to believe in anything regarding religion?
Ooops. Actually I hit the wrong box to reply in. It was snuffy I thought I was talking to. He was the one defending this by the "man is flawed" straw argument. SO yes, I apologize for my error that directed it to you. I make no apologies for what I said though. It's the truth and I'd like to hear one zealot at least answer my questions with forthrightness and not with their head up their butt blah blah blah crap.
Perrie, I am testing the waters here and there --to be honest with you. I see there is such inequality in what some posters here get away with and others do not. I call a spade a spade and will, so it looks like I will be watching the ticket counter go up quite a bit as I help some of these moderators keep their delete fingers unbiased and self-serving. I don't mean you. You know who I'm talking about. I get that I can snark with the best of them but sweeping generalizations are something that goes on unabashedly here daily.
Okay.
But seriously, you got all of that from his single post of:
I'm trying to understand what in my comment of "man is a flawed creature" led you to believe that I am a zealot. And I'm trying to see how you read that to put you in such a state where you had to attack me. I am in the process of re-reading and re-studying the Bible for personal reasons but not to push anything out. My comments were more along the line of laughing at people as we are all guilty of cherry-picking the pieces we want to talk about and ignoring that which we don't.
The Bible has many stories of how flawed man is. Daily life also confirms the same. Some people do things for good or bad and say that God made them do it. Some people do things for good or bad and say critical thinking made them do it. I would rather sit back, attempt to do the good things and not get worked up over the words of others. I don't always succeed, but then I am also flawed.
You can't see what a straw man excuse that is so there's no sense telling you how I'm able to gauge anything here. Convenient excuses and slight of hand games is all your brethren zealots ever come up with and it looks like you chose to be amongst those that want to play games with your retort rather than simply state the facts, it really doesn't make sense. None of it does and it never has. Cherry picking be damned.
BTW, I was once in that same type flock so I know what it is when I see it. I was a zealot. It doesn't take much to be a religious zealot --which to me is someone who claims they have seen the light to fool themselves and others with word games but never really having a handle on truth, facts and reality. It isn't a feeling "to believe" ...it's the output reaction of being brainwashed into cultism. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't feel as if you are making any headway in this.
Might just have to give it up as a lost cause.
Apparently, a zealot is now anyone of faith who dares to voice it in public.
True enough.
You've had ample opportunity to answer the questions posed. Yet you would rather play victim.
Fight or flight, I get it.
Now that zealot has been defined, perhaps people will quit misusing it?
religion is subordinate to the Constitution
... unless those religious convictions are contrary to the Constitution
Hi Robin,
I don't wish to go to meta on someone else's article so please check your "Private Notes", which you can find under your name in the upper right hand corner.
Uh, southern baptist I would venture a guess
A poor guess.
Really, hummmmmmm
One of the things that bothers me most is the refusal to recognize that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) does not condemn slavery - the owning of another human being as property . The practice was replete during biblical times so there is no chance that it was ' overlooked '. Indeed, slavery is mentioned in the Bible. In the NT, and then heavily in the OT. And not only did God - the arbiter of objective morality - NOT condemn slavery as immoral , He actually made rules for properly enslavement.
I have observed people do somersaults denying this and/or trying to equivocate on the meaning of the word 'slave'. It is sad IMO.
Example passage:
I think the notion that any of these passages are ignored is false and is a kind of straw man employed to characterize all believers as hypocrites at best, morons at worst. (I'll be fair/generous and acknowledge that the article says "some" and "most" ignore these passages. Technically, that's not "all" I guess.)
The Bible requires study and analysis, even debate. Passages do not always have the meaning or significance that self-professed critics - or fundamentalists, for that matter - think they do.
Trouble is, the most learned in the Bible (and other 'holy' books) are not in agreement. Without a clear source of truth everyone can claim that their interpretation is the true one.
Always back to the same old thing TiG. LOL Interpertation ain't easily understood dontcha know cuz you ain't studied enough. pfffft!
Question: WHAT is the correct way of saying: Six and Seven ARE eleven -- or Six and Seven IS eleven?
Thing is, I have lived my life surrounded by friends and family who are Catholic and Protestant (a minority are Jewish, a few Muslims and then an atheist every now and then). So based on quite a few decades as an observant adult I can state quite confidently (based on my sample space of friends and family) that religious people typically ignore or are entirely unaware of much of the Bible. And it is not that they (ordinary religious people) purposely cherry-pick. The cherry-picking was done by their religious organizations and passed onto the faithful via Sunday school and church services.
I just have to shrug when I see some people argue that God (who ostensibly created homosexual people) wants homosexuals to refrain from following their nature (again, a nature ostensibly given to them by an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, loving God). Then, we have those who ignore the fact that the OT has God (Yahweh) harshly condemning homosexual acts (between men only) with a penalty of death. Pretty much God stating clear disapproval. But some argue that Jesus only considered homosexuality a sin and loved all sinners .... so ... Jesus is okay with gay. But then they will not put this together and realize that Jesus IS Yahweh. Presumably because that would illustrate that either an omniscient and perfect God 'changed His mind' (a contradiction) or that Yahweh and Jesus disagree (a contradiction of another sort).
But I guess some just dismiss this as a 'straw man' (or another excuse) and avoid the question entirely.
That IMO is religious indoctrination at play suppressing critical thinking.
Well I think it should also be remembered that the Bible is a collection of stories that while inspired by God are written by men. And there are several stories in the Bible that talk about the same instance but are coming from different people so they see or remember things differently.
If you're looking for perfection you won't find it here on earth, you will need to wait to see what the afterlife brings.
Or it is a collection of stories conceived by and written by men pretending to speak for the grandest possible entity.
That is exactly what it is and it's very hard to trust people who try to convince they are being logical or reasonable at all.
So what? That's true of the New York Times, too. You going to tell people to stop reading that, too? You want everything handed to you for free? Stop whining and try opening your mind and heart instead. Just a suggestion.
Ignoring it? I doubt that. Try to find out the "why" behind it. Then keep studying and try to figure out what it is that God really wants from people.
It is. When you try to present an argument that's false and then attack it, as was done here, that's exactly what you have: a straw man.
How about starting with something more basic - why worry about the opinion of a god that is unlikely to exist?
Are we really here to talk about whether or not God exists? I thought we didn't do that around here.
If you're going to proselytize people by telling them to study what god wants from people, it seems to me to be pretty important to establish that god actually exists, yes? Else we might as well be studying what Zeus wants from us - one is as valid as the other.
That which does not exist can't want anything.
I'm not the one saying God does, doesn't, or is "unlikely to exist." You are.
All I did was criticize the content of the seed and discuss the importance of studying before forming an opinion. Others want to come in here and say God doesn't exist or the Bible is mythology. Those are the people who are proselytizing.
You said we should find out what god wants from us. If he wants, he exists. If he doesn't exist, he can't want.
You advise us to study the Bible with the assumption that we'll find out from it "what God really wants." Telling folks to consult your religious texts for truth is prosyletizing.
I didn't say that. The topic of this seed is the meaning of certain passages in scripture, so I'm not the one suggesting you consult the texts for any reason. The seeder is.
I said that if you are going to consult them and seek meaning in them, then that process requires careful study, analysis, and debate, as opposed to just reading a translation and assuming you know what it means.
If you had understood what I wrote you would know that I would encourage everyone to take the New York Times as the product of human beings - many with agendas. That would mean not accepting everything written in the New York Times as truth.
Breaking it down:
You did not understand what I wrote.
Are you actually claiming that all theologians and biblical scholars agree?
Projection (at a Pee Wee Herman level even). Do better.
I don't see an "if" there.
I think most everyone agrees that one should be knowledgeable about something before forming an opinion. Merely stating an obvious platitude is not an argument. An argument involves facts and reason. So what is your critical argument regarding this seed?
Here is what you offered @7:
So your point is that people do misinterpret the Bible (obvious to most everyone) and that understanding the Bible is complicated (demonstrably given thousands of years of study and we still do not have the clear truth). I suspect most people agree with these obvious points. I certainly do.
Got anything of significance to offer? Something that is insightful?
I didn't come close to saying anything about theologians and biblical scholars agreeing on anything.
This is an empty accusation offered with no evidence or explanation followed by a personal attack. I think maybe you need to do better.
Then you agree that after thousands of years of studying the Bible even our 'experts' do not see eye-to-eye.
So how long do you propose people study and analyze the Bible before we reach truth? 10,000 years?
seems quite odd that the "grandest entity possible" would try to confuse/perplex it's own creations and give them a riddle that takes 10,000 years to figure out which is supposed to be a "clear message". Normally when a "clear message" is written - it is communicated to large group(s) of humans quite quickly and efficiently.
So many Christians refuse to accept that they are interpreting the bible - even though they clearly are, or else they'd all be in agreement. Debate offends literalists, because they're already convinced they know exactly what it means. I wonder if literalists go to bible study and, if so, what it would be like?
if this ever became a xtian nation, the religious melee would start the next day
that part of the comment makes no sense. I'm told the Bible is communication from the grandest entity in existence and yet - this entity couldn't communicate it's message clearly enough so there would be no misinterpretation by humans nor any need for debates nor analysis etc ??
God never promised you a rose garden; i.e., life is not easy. Get over it and get to studying.
what an odd statement, wouldn't you have to really exist to make a promise ? unless maybe you are a fictional character in a story ? .... besides, this God entity never promised me anything personally... are you under the impression this God entity personally promised you something ???
still - you never answered the question - if this is God entity is the grandest entity possible and all powerful etc, and the Bible is God's word... then why can't the grandest entity possible communicate it's word clearly with no room for error nor misinterpretation ?
God is unlikely to have ever promised anything. And most of us are fairly familiar with the mythology contained within the pages of the Bible.
What makes you think he can't? What makes you think he hasn't? What makes you think he should?
Who should be able to interpret the word? You? A child? An old man? A wise man? A fool? What will be the standard? What makes you think you know everything that is required for learning?
the bible and it's many wonderful misinterpretations. what makes you think he can ?
the bible and it's many wonderful misinterpretations. what makes you think he has ?
if the God, being "grandest entity possible", has a message for humans - wouldn't you logically think it would be communicated clearly to those humans with no room for misinterpretation ? (i know i know, i'm asking "logically"... seems to be a foreign concept when it comes to religion sometimes...) i know many humans who effectively communicate and leave no room for misinterpretation and they aren't even the "grandest entity possible".
everyone, since it's a message meant for humans, correct ? or do you think there are "special" humans that God wanted to communicate with while not wanting to bother with any other humans ?
well, since it's a message for humans, i would think that humans would be the standard, but you seem to think otherwise based upon the amount of questions you are asking. So you tell me - what will be the standard ?
why don't you tell everyone what is required for learning - we'll start from there. (i can't wait for this)
still - you never answered the question - if this is God entity is the grandest entity possible and all powerful etc, and the Bible is God's word... then why can't the grandest entity possible communicate it's word clearly with no room for error nor misinterpretation ? (we know that obviously God couldn't do this since the bible is misinterpreted quite often in many ways)
Believe what you like. Study or don't. I'm not here to change your mind about it.
cool. then keep it in the home or on church property, where it belongs.
i'm not convinced to believe nor disbelieve, but thanks.
well, thanks for the attempt at answering the question(s)
Sometimes even when you think you didn't get an answer, it turns out maybe you did. Just not the one you were expecting.
Critical point.
How convenient that the Bible's true message only be understandable by the elite in the religious order.
Catholic vs. Protestant blood battles of the 15th-17th centuries was predicated on this very notion. The Catholic church was against everyday folks having access to the Bible. People were murdered (burned alive) for possessing a Bible, selling Bibles, conducting non-mass religious services. The reason, clearly, was that the Catholic church wanted to control the message and hold absolute power over the people. And it worked well for a very long time.
wow, what an interesting fortune cookie comment - too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with our conversation and your failed attempts at answering questions about that unproven mystical entity. Maybe you should study the bible better and a bit more to get the answers to my questions
the concept is still in play today... why else keep the hierarchy ? only the religious leaders can know what their God wants - it's why you must go to them, it's why they are more special than anyone else etc... It's all about control
Without a doubt.
CHRISTIAN CATFIGHT!!!!😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Here's one you missed that will help you, maybe