/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>553902

>arguing with atheist

Aaaaand there's your mistake.

>>553905

>james white

>the bible is the inerrant and preserved word of God

>except where it's not and people added stuff to it like the story of the adulteress

modern textual criticism not even once

>hurrr if you don't agree with gay-sex then why are you wearing mixed fabrics?

"Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things.For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well."

Acts 15.

>>553948

they will argue that homosexual marriage is not forbidden in that verse, and the OT rulings like leviticus are "burdens that no longer apply" and Romans 1 is just a historical narrative or something and Sodom and Gomorrah weren't punished for homosex but for rape and "not being generous to the pour" ala Ezekiel verse

I had one guy argue that David and Jonathan were gay…

>>553905

>Thinks that Atheist believes that God's word is the sole fallible measurement of practice

This itself is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura, which means nothing more or less than "Scripture Alone," or that Scripture solely determines or defines Christian belief. OP is right when he says that when an atheist relies strictly on biblical verses with no appreciation for historical, contextual, or traditional context, he is using the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Ask him which specific verse says that the only truth to be found is in the Bible. Make sure you know that when the Bible says 'The Word,' it means Jesus, and that Jesus is not the Bible (like when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life."). Point to the verse in Romans that says the purpose of the law is to show humans that they cannot keep the law. Point out the parts where Jesus gives specific instructions about the heart, stating that the law isn't as important as the heart. Point out that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Once he concedes that there are exceptions and interpretations in the law (if he doesn't, condescendingly tell him it's no wonder he thinks there are contradictions in the Bible and that he probably literally thinks Solomon's wife was made out of animals and silverware), ask why he thinks he, an atheist who has passingly read a few verses out of context, is better qualified to interpret the Bible than somebody for whom it is literally the most important thing in his life.

ProTip: If he starts talking down to you about Science (note the capital 'S'), ask why he thinks people he cites are worth more reliable than people you cite. If he says something about how scientists are more qualified to discuss science, point out that he rejects this exact same reasoning when it comes to interpreting scripture.

Use the Socratic method. Let him keep talking, and then point out the inconsistencies in his arguments. The only thing consistent about an atheist's arguments is that everybody else is wrong and uneducated.

>>553902

The funny thing is the mixed fabrics law is actually a metaphor for Israel not mixing with other laws of other nations.

T. My Douay Rheims footnotes

>>554104

What makes you say this? why can it not be a law against making shitty fabric??

>>554110

why not both?

>>554111

fair nuff

[-]

[+]

>>553951

Then show them 1 Corinthians 6 which says literally "Homosexuals cannot enter heaven"

Plus OP started from wrong place. He should start from position that every sex outside of marriage is serious sin that block you from heaven. And then add that marriage is participation in union beteen Jesus and Ecclesia, not Jesus and Steve.

>>553951

>they will argue that homosexual marriage

Just tell them to read the full chapter. The Apostles were talking literally about laws of the Old Covenant and still besisdes fornication that is condemned by Jesus himself, we can see that the Apostles even loosen the restraints made in the Council of Jerusalem regarding the things sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8).

Abstaining from blood is another example that some of these comandments was a temporary. Because mandatory dietary restrictions makes no sense when the overall teaching of Jesus about the topic is this verse: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Matthew 15:11.

Most laws of the Old Covenant is abolished except the explicit comandments of Jesus and his Apostles (regarding the Apostles some were just temporary as I told before).

Regarding homossexual marriage, Jesus says that marriage is with man and woman. What does an atheist wants more? It's simple homossexual "marriage" isn't marriage because it isn't between man and woman.

>he asks me which verse defines these two covenants and which verse distignushes moral law vs ceremonial

>use historical examples, argue by extension since dietary laws, sacrifice laws and circumcision are fulfilled we can deduce that all these "ceremonial/sacrificial laws" are fulfilled including mixed fabrics meant to separate israelites…

Your fault really, this whole moral/civil/ceremonial law distinction is a complete myth. You are in fact not under ANY of the laws of Moses moral or otherwise. You failed to convince him because you didn't know this basic fact.

The atheist was right, there is absolutely nothing which distinguishes moral from ceremonial in the law of Moses in the bible, in fact the law of Moses itself states that you have to follow every law within the law of Moses (Deut 6:25; 27:10; 28:58) - is that a moral or ceremonial command? We have this repeated for us in our New Testaments (James 2:10).

I strongly, strongly recommend that you read and meditate on the epistle to the Galatians which concerns this issue.

You basically needed to show him what the end of Galatians 5 summarises - that we are not under the law, but we are not lawless people. When a Christian decides not to murder, or steal or commit sodomy, it absolutely should not be because he is living by a stripped down version of the law of Moses.

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you won't fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, that you may not do the things that you desire. >>>>But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law<<<<. Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts."

>>554187

that's all nice and good but even paul says we're under a new covenant and the old one passes away

>>554188

Try reading my post