#rebuking fallacies

[pickmeforjesus]

[pickmeforjesus]

> "they try to persuade you one way or another" *proceeds to explain how democrat go against righteousness and how you shouldn't vote for them*

BOTH parties stand against what God want in their own way, so it's delusional to point out only one as endorsing the 'most unrighteousness', because in both cases, you still endorse unrighteousness which is still....unrighteous lol

Yes, we shouldn't bully people into voting or not voting (duh!), but please Andy don't be an hypocrite and pull out some backhanded post to basically say "you are absolutely entitled to vote/should vote....just not for democrats ....but don't let yourself be influenced in your vote decision by anyone !!"

I also find interesting how he has all that smoke for voters bullying (which is indeed wrong), but has absolutely nothing to say about the non voters bullying that also represents quite a significant movement. And let's no forget how Democrat Christians are the main target of online campaigns (led by fellow Christian "influential" figures - through articles, videos....) inquiring them about their voting choice and sneakily trying to influence them against the Democrat vote

In that post, Andy acts like the bullying was one-sided, when it definitely goes both way. That's why this post reeks of hypocrisy and blindsided-ness.

I'm a bit appealed over his weird unprovoked (?) defensiveness over voting, but I guess he's panicking over Harris program which may trouble his discernment. This post reads like an emotional reaction lacking an objective & fair perspective on the situation at hand.

[pickmeforjesus]

Something I'll never truly get from this whole era of weeping about this generation's lack of "media literacy" is that you guys are the most illiterate ones when it comes to the Bible

The Bible will basically state "rapes happened" and you will be "GOD CONDONES RAPE!!"

Or radfem who are so adamant that Israelites raped captives which is impossible because Israelites were forbidden to have sex outside of marriage let alone with foreigners, and that the only condition to have a relationship with foreign women was by wifing them Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

And while Israelites at war were allowed to MARRY a female captive (still not rape because words have meaning and you guys need to stop projecting whatever stuff into an objective statement out of your own opinionated bias) they'll have to wait for marriage to be allowed to have sexual relationships with her. And you know what's funny? if that marriage didn't work or that the Israelite repudiates her, the Israelite man has the obligation to let her go ("If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes.") which makes any scenario where Israelites would forcefully marry captives for them to become their sex slaves completely moot because this passage actually establishes marriage as the only legal escape room for women to leave captivity (" let her go wherever she wishes." +"You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.")

And inb4 "but why did Israelites kill women and children and kept them as captives?? WHY GOD IS SO CRUEL??" -> WELCOME TO THE OLD TESTAMENT where life was grim and Grace had yet to land onto humanity.

We as Christians don't abide to those rules anymore - Jewish people do. But since Christians are an easier target you only come at us to give accountability for still upholding those rules when we actually don't (we don' got to war to protect a territory because our Kingdom is in Heaven, and we now show the other cheek,not gouge the eye of those who wronged us). Go bother jewish people if you dare lol.... Oh my bad, the lots of you are too busy simping for them for being a bulwark against the Islamist menace whatever.

[pickmeforjesus]

"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Romans 13:5-6

[pickmeforjesus]

I think the reason every "Christmas is actually Christian" essay falls flat is because they inevitably make one of those those mistake:

- conflate "tradition" with actually "prescription from God". "Christians 200 years ago decided to put up trees and decorate them" explain to me why those "Christians" are rehashing the same rites as non Christians/heathens to worship their own gods. Is that a coincidence? Explain to me why a handful of European Christian doing stuff should suddenly become an approved Christian rite? If tomorrow I decide to wear read socks whenever I pray doesn't make red socks-wearing prayer time any more Christian.

- act like the birth of Jesus was the most important event for Christians. It's not. Jesus being born alone isn't what made Christianity. Jesus winning over sin and death did. If ~30 years after his birth Jesus abided to satan's temptation in the desert it would've be over for us all. That's why Jesus said "it is accomplished" just before blowing his last breath while nailed on the cross - not when he was a child, returning from his 40 days in the desert or after his baptism. The only reason Christians make a big deal out of Christmas is out of laziness because talking about the cute birth of Jesus in a barn is less demanding than talking about how his excruciating death on the cross is actually God biggest display of Love for Humanity

- "Christmas is the perfect time to evangelization" We should evangelize 365 days a year. Paul said we should do so under any circumstances, not those that are more favorable to us

- thinking that pagan = going against God. Doing something with God at heart doesn't mean that God approves it. Never forget that Saul went to see a necromancer to find support/advice to lead a battle he thought God would approve (fighting philistines). Intention doesn't give you credentials. And on the opposite, pagan do things thinking they worship God (ex : other religions) while they're still in bad favor to Him

- "Christmas can't be pagan because there's "Christ" in it 🤪" ...let me introduce you to the concept of non English languages. In french, Christmas is said "Noël" which interestingly can be read as "No El" which can be translated as "No God"....

- "aKtcHualLy Jesus was born on December 25th uwu" Cool story bro. Stil irrelevant to the fact that nothing in the Bible states we should celebrate his birthday. If God thought that day irrelevant enough to not put it out there, why are you hellbent investigating when it was and pull out whole ceremonials around it?

[pickmeforjesus]

the fact that there are Christians out there legitimately using the fact that Jesus flipped the table & seats of money changers and be like "see?! that's why violence is biblically sanctioned in the Bible!!" is hysterical

First of all, Jesus didn't hit people, he destroyed things. What he did was pretty much property damage. Which is precisely what some of you consider a legitimate reason of killing something. That's right: you guys are closer to pharisees who actively sought out to kill the one responsible of said property damage (Jesus) than Jesus itself. Let that sink in.

Secondly, he did so to defend the honor of his FATHER (God). Whenever I see Christians defending violence, in most cases, they bring up "if my life is threatened" argument. Jesus never used violence to protect or defend himself.

Jesus flipping tables was a rejection of the mercantilism surrounding God temple (the Church). The message of God has to be free to any financial transaction. It should reflect today in rejecting all the financial transactions in church assemblies: whether it's biblical literature, worship music, biblical study classes/curriculum, etc.

Interestingly enough, I hardly see Christians seeking to destroy as violently as Jesus did the endeavors of those modern "merchant of the Temple" because they have a very flawed interpretation of that passage.

It doesn't help they are also desperate to find a coverup to their entitlement for violence, hiding a deeper pathological fear of death.

[pickmeforjesus]

another day, another pro gun "Christians" swaying souls into hell by twisting the Scriptures

This one is going to be long and I know that hardly anyone will read it, but I actually do it for 1) for God who explicitly told me to "do my part" and 2)the 1% of Christians who are actually dedicated to follow Christ and not trample the word of God because of their sinful entitlement to murder.

If even one (1) person reading this actually changes their mind on gun violence than it will be a Grace from the Lord and I am glad of being a useful servant of Christ.

I'm going to call out the misquote, dishonesty and LIES of typical pro gun Christians. Since tumblr isn't really handy for text formatting I'm going to color code every "chapter" of the exposé to smoothen up the read

Israelites prerogatives ≠ Christian prerogatives

The bigger picture

Jesus is the Sword - not guns

God is the only self-defense

Let's begin ! ✝️💙

1. Israelites prerogatives ≠ Christian prerogatives

I'll tackle down the tumblr user reply to the ask later, to focus on the link she posted as a "pretty well done exploration" as of why gun violence is seemingly a-OK to Christians.

I'd like to start off saying that every Christian using Old Testament Prescriptions to legitimize the use of violence to CHRISTIANS is either, uneducated about basic Christian theology, a liar, a false prophet or a maybe everything at once. That's why this website quoting plentiful of OT (=Old Testament) prescriptions FIRST is a very bad omen forecasting the piss poor theology that's going to unfold in that page.

Israelites had to abide to specific rules and commandments that matched their own very specific purpose : they had to fight/go to WAR to create the EARTHLY kingdom of God. The commandment compelling to not kill was only for Israelites (because Israelites went to war and killed cities foreign to Israel). And even within the Kindgom of Israel, there were cases where murder was allowed in situations when it was sanctioned by God to kill (those caught breaking the sabbath had to stoned, for example).

Ever since Jesus crucifixion and the veil got torn, Christians don't abide to the prescriptions of Israelites. There's no more kingdom of God on earth. There are chances that you, who's currently reading this, are living in a country with defined frontiers that you don't have to go to war to defend and/or expand (as God told you to).

We do not abide to the 613 commandments of Israelites anymore : we can eat pork (no more "impure food"), don't have to stone anyone not doing the sabbath, circumcise newborn son, etc.

Interestingly, the same Christians who use OT prescription enabling the use of violence and murder, don't feel compelled to follow the other set of commandments abiding to Israelites. They're cherry-picking what goes their way simply because they a) don't understand the Bible b)are dishonest.

Israelites had to obey to ALL commandments - disobeying to one, was like disobeying to the WHOLE Torah (James 2:10-11)

Feel entitled to Israelites rights? Fine, abide to their OBLIGATIONS, too.

You think you still have God sanctioned right to kill? Then keep that same energy for the other 600+ commandments of those having the same right : do the sabbath, circumcise your sons, stop eating pork, stone adulterous people, etc etc. You cannot be a CHRISTIAN while abiding to cherry-picked Law prerogative. You cannot have it both ways.

2. The bigger picture

In the tumblr post reply, she refers to the passage in Luke where Jesus lets his disciple arm themselves moments before he gets arrest. This passage is infamously misquoted by pro gun zealots. Their trick is that they ALWAYS disregard the second part of the story where Jesus scold the very person who used their weapon to protect him (Peter) and went as far as heal the man, which shows how dishonest they are. But that's not enough ;

In the website she linked, we reach a whole new level of Scriptural twisting dishonesty

It's interesting how this person is switching the word of the passage from "sword" to "gun". I'll elaborate on this later on the point #3, but the "sword" is a very significant symbol in the Bible, and seeing this person recklessly replace it with a "gun" truly shows how off base they are when it comes to biblical literacy. Bad theology all around.

"It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations" then why quoting those passage in a pro gun defense article? If you can't draw a conclusive interpretation from that passage, what's the point of bringing it up?

Jesus giving his consent for his disciple to bring along weapons doesn't mean he endorsed their use. Jesus said "That's enough", not "That's good" or "That's right". The Bible is full of examples of God "consenting" to humans carrying on their sin up until a certain point. It doesn't mean God condoned the sin itself. And yet, many pro gun Christians use this cherry-picked passage of Jesus in Gethsemane to act like Jesus endorsed gun use.

Jesus explicitly saying ""Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" and ""Stop! No more of this" are pretty clear, actually. The author quotes them here :

It's not that we're "getting a sense of(...)", OP. That's literally what Jesus says, that's not an impression or a feeling. What's more straightforward then saying "Stop" when witnessing a violent act? why are you acting like there was any ambiguity about the actual intention or message of Jesus saying that? There's not. Jesus doesn't want violence to happen. Period.

But you wanna know why the author is acting oblivious about the straightforwardness of those passages ? because if they admit that Jesus rebuked violence, then their stance in favor of gun violence ends up moot. So they act dumb.

Note that after that explanation, the author states : "The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ." but they miserably fail in showing in what situation using the sword is actually an "appropriate response" beside quoting the Old Testament (which I already explained in point #1 why Christians weren't entitled to OT prescriptions). And when they do quote the New Testament, they do so in a fashion that leaves out the whole picture to twist the actual message of that passage (e.g quoting Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭35‬-‭38 to act like Jesus condoned gun carrying when he allowed to do so to publicly rebuke them later and make his point known to a multitude of people)

3. Jesus is the Sword - not guns

Now I'd like to reflect on the Sword that is repeatedly used in the Bible, and what it actually represents in the Gospel (plot twist : not guns)

One fundamental staple of a sound theology is acknowledging that words usage do matter in the Bible and are particularly relevant when they are consistently rehashed through the books. The Sword is one of them.

I'd like to quote verses of the New Testament featuring the Sword

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The Sword is SPIRITUAL. And you know who's the "Word of God"? JESUS (John 1:1 and 14)

Hebrew 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Here the God of Word is again metaphorically represented as a sharped tool ("sharper than any twoedged sword")

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Only Jesus is entitled to carry a Sword ; because HE is the Sword. Has Jesus used a physical sword to kill people while on earth? or called his disciples to carry a physical sword? in Luke 22:35-39 in which Jesus tells them to "buy" a sword, a few moments later he rebukes the one who actually used it, so it's definitely NOT a physical sword he was talking about. Why would Jesus incite his disciples into possessing something (carrying a sword) only to scold them for using it moments later?? it doesn't make any sense. His disciples definitely got something wrong in the process (=understanding the sword as something physical, not spiritual). That's why reading Luke 22:35-36 as elevating weaponry as godly sanctioned is a total misconception.

The Sword that Jesus does bring is SPIRITUAL. He's the Sword of the Spirit that will separate His children from the rest of the flock. The joint vs the narrow. The goat vs the lamb. Heaven vs Hell.

Pro guns are misguiding people into believing that guns are the equivalent of the "sword" that's talked about in the Bible. That couldn't be more untrue.

Either those people either know that the biblical Sword = Jesus and LIE about it to project what they want into Jesus teaching, or they don't and by their ignorance, they are professing a destructive theology that's bewildering many Christians. Hosea 4:6

This person is LYING to you. That's why they obsessively resort to quote prescriptions for ISRAELITES to back up their falsehood. The Philistines aren't a thing anymore. CHRISTIANS don't have a Kingdom to protect & expand. Christians are dispatched through the Nations - there's no more united "people of YHYW nation". The only relevant kingdom to defend is THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM OF GOD.

Possession of weapons is discouraged in the sense that Christians aren't entitled to violence (see point #4). This is the same logic as acknowledging that Christians shouldn't possess porn videos because adultery is forbidden. And inb4 the comparison with knives (who can also be used a deathly weapons) : knives actually have a purpose beside hurting or killing. Normal people don't buy knive having in mind hurting someone ; therefore owning them isn't sinful.

To show you how dishonest this person is, look at them quoting Romans 12:19 that states to "NEVER take [our] revenge".

How "NEVER". is remotely compatible with "oh in some cases it's okay to use violence"?? And yet it doesn't seem to ring a bell into the author's mind. Crazy.

Then the author proceeds to make the more asinine examples of "good" use of violence

As tackled in point #1 the shady usage of Israel prescription to justify how CHRISTIANS can use violence is an instant giveaway of bad theology and should be dismissed when it comes to CHRISTIAN (not Jewish) theology

But can we also talk about the author saying that David is "not a soldier???" KING David? who spend almost his whole life FIGHTING IN WARS and building the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel?? "NOT a solider"???? .......This person can't be serious, and I'm legitimately embarrassed for anyone taking seriously anything coming from this page.

Then the author compels to use to look into worldly entertainment(??!!) for example of proper use of violence *shrugs*

The cognitive dissonance of quoting Romans 12:19 ("Never take your revenge") just after elevating -full of violence and aggressiveness- gunfight/Western movies as an example of "great virtue" is mind-blowing....

4. God is the only self-defense

The reason some Christians rely on their gun -instead of God- is because of their unfaithfulness.

They don't believe that God can protect them when needed, so instead they elevate physical weapons and shoe horn them as biblical.

They also undermine God's power by acting like beside physical violence, we cannot help people :

This couldn't be further from the truth!! There are NO EXAMPLE IN THE BIBLE OF CHRISTIANS USING VIOLENCE TO SAVE PEOPLE.

Abiding in the Lord asks for resilience and Love. Which is someone pro gun Christians desperately lack. Love is not compatible with Death.

The reason Jesus didn't resort to use violence against the men who came to arrest him (when he could) is out of obedience to the Lord. Non-violence is a direct commandment from God ; therefore Christianism is fundamentally non-violent.

Proverbs 3:31

Do not envy the violent or choose any of their ways

Matthew 5:38-39

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Therefore, every Christian defending the use of violence are disobeying God ; and every child of rebellion will end up in Hell.

No human is entitled to kill another creature of God. Their body belong to God, and we are not entitled to "steal" God's property.

TL;DR :

every Christian using Old Testament Prescriptions to legitimize the use of violence to CHRISTIANS, is either uneducated about basic Christian theology, a liar, or a false prophet

You cannot be a Christian while feeling entitled to the Law prerogative. If you want to be entitled to murder like the Israelites, then you necessarily have to abide to the same Law as them. Christians can't have it both ways : the Law is incompatible with the Grace & Salvation covenant (Romans 8)

Jesus giving his consent for his disciple to bring along weapons doesn't mean he endorsed their use. Jesus said "That's enough", not "That's good" or "That's right". The Bible is full of example of God "consenting" to humans carrying on their sin up until a certain point. It doesn't mean God condoned the sin, but rather let humans learn & grown from their mistake.

The Christian "Sword" is Jesus, not guns

The reason some Christians rely on their gun -instead of God- is because of their unfaithfulness

[pickmeforjesus]

"the Word of God tells the world of man that you are inferior to them"

VERY curious to know WHERE in the Bible it is established the woman is inferior to man, but ok.

Actually, Galatians 3:28 explicitly states that God makes no difference regardless of race, social class and gender (and is pretty much a verse rebuking racism, classism and sexism within the Church).

"Their deities are men"

YHWH is the Father but transcends males/female boundaries as we know them. God being identified as Male (e.g the Father) has literally no impact whatsoever in His relationship with female believers. Women aren't anymore "dominated" by God because He's male, than male believers. Actually, I've always found pretty sweet how the Church (so both men and women lumped together) was metaphorically represented as a bride, and Jesus as the groom. That's because, as I said, the relationship each believer (regardless of their gender) has with God transcends earthly comprehension of sex. Otherwise this would imply that men of the Church have homosexual relationship with the groom Jesus? 🤔

"Their prophets are men"

That's how I know you people have no idea what you're talking about.... The Bible actually have plentiful of female prophetess : Deborah, Huldah, Anne, Mary..... Just because the Bible doesn't have entire books featuring their names, doesn't mean they aren't acknowledged as such. You people don't read the Bible, and it shows.

Otherwise you'd know it specifically talks about sons and DAUGHTERS prophesizing in the end times (Acts 2:17). Spiritual gifts -of which prophecy is one of them- can be acquired regardless of sex.

"Their teachers are men"

Christian women can be teacher actually - just to not teach men (1 Timothy 2:12). If anything, Christian education seems to withhold sex segregated education (which I'm personally a proponent of). I also think female separatists would also agree with me on that lel

"these are men dominated cult, run by men and advocated by men to perpetuate their control"

God dominates the Church - not men. Actually the Bible makes a big deal of showing that men will eventually *always* fall short of God holiness, and that believer should only rely on God Himself.

You people have such a reductive vision of Christianism that you can't remotely comprehend that many of us live our faith outside of church communities, without a (male) church leader.

I will never get how comfortable so many of you are to erase female's role in Christian communities ("run by men") when women's ministry have a whole part in the body of Christ. Just because Christian women aren't called to have a "leading" position when interacting with men, that they are not important or should be dismissed as insignificant. There's something pretty ironic with feminists being uncapable of divesting from men and are so obsessed in competing with them they are downplaying women's achievements or 'calling' if they are not the same as men...

"Stop trying to carve out a space for yourself in a religion designed to subjugate you"

This doesn't make any sense. If the Church was seeking to subjugate women, it wouldn't compel them to remain celibate instead of seeking for companionship (= free from any male dominance = husband) e.g Paul letters.

Your entire narrative relies on a misconstrued tunnel vision of Christianism that fails the test of reality. Christian women's existence isn't to "carve out a space" into anything. It's a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP with God.

Christian women could never attend any (male-led) church or Christian community one single time in their life and still be Christian.

I'm sure you people can't even grasp the difference between the church (little c - buildings), and the Church (capital C - the body of Christ).

I have no idea why you're so obsessive in overestimating male influence in Christian women. Almost the entirety of biblical teaching are regardless gender (but also age, race, language, culture, time frame...). There's a reason why places where Christian influence is the strongest have the fairest life condition for women - but you conveniently ignore it and paint every abrahamic religion with the same brush. Sorry but Christians are different.

Jesus is the way the Truth and the Life.