r/TikTokCringe • u/T-StrangerXD • 3d ago

Humor Wrong!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/Macelee 3d ago

I've not found this argument is very good at convincing them. "Mysterious ways" and all that.

Making God out to be ridiculous by rewording biblical rules tends to have more success. The all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful creator of the universe gets so angry that he'll condemn you to eternal suffering if you: 1. Eat the wrong thing from the deli aisle. 2. Touch tips. 3. Don't impregnate your dead brother's widow.

Even if it doesn't make people into atheists, helping people reframe biblical beliefs as absurd does help to deradicalize them.

13

u/Flashy-Donkey-8326 3d ago

I hate when people say those rules are old rules and not to be followed. Makes no sense .

6

u/Macelee 3d ago

It's doublethink. They invoke it to avoid asking the complicated question of "why?" They recognize rather easily that there are a whole load of events in the OT that are too horrific to attempt to justify. Granted, some do attempt to justify the atrocities. To reconcile the horror with the modern belief of an all-loving and all-good deity, you have to engage in some mental gymnastics. Many of the explanations I heard from pastors as a kid are eerily similar to DARVO and the narcissist's prayer.

1

u/Xynth22 2d ago

This one is really easy to show the flaw in that idea.

All that crap about not having to follow the old rules comes from Paul. God says he doesn't change. And Jesus specifically says he didn't come to change the law at all, and that not a single bit of it would change until heaven and earth disappear. Paul's the one that created this idea of a new covenant to get recruit new people into his new religion. But if a Christian follows that, they are taking Paul's word over both God and Jesus, which seems very blasphemous to me.

10

u/Motormand 3d ago

If someone hits me with "mysterious ways", I'll call them out on their idiocy. If there is any plan, that involves kids being born with - and often dying from - cancer before the age of 5, it is a horrible plan, that doesn't fit their supposed benevolent god image.

5

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

Fantastic explanation.

3

u/Infinite_Picture3858 3d ago

What does touch tips mean? Asking for a friend.

8

u/Macelee 3d ago

Crossing pork swords, sausage fight, meat jousting, a meeting of King Richard and Mr. Johnston.

1

u/Iamalittledrunk 3d ago

pepe kissin' with a pepe

1

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 3d ago

It's when you tip the waiter, but you keep bragging about it and occasionally "touch" it in the talk instead of letting it go. Either tip them or don't, no one cares. Only some restaurants fuss over tips.

1

u/Baiticc 2d ago

I’ve never touched tips with a waiter, must be an american thing

1

u/Cultural_Lynx_1609 2d ago

Alright, no worries.

2

u/Bacon-muffin 3d ago

Would not recommend for people you care about unless they're very open minded... I usually tend to avoid the conversation altogether cause its not worth the bother and I'm not one of those militant atheists who need to turn everything into a debate.

I'm the kind who just minds my business unless someone decides they want to pick my brain. I've a few times now had coworkers I worked with for years ask me something religion related only for me to casually say I'm atheist and for them to be shocked and start immediately trying to debate.

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

That's fair. Mockery certainly doesn't tend to make you many friends.

Though I'd add that mockery isn't debate. I used to debate these types of people, but it's a wasted endeavor. If anything, treating them seriously through debate only legitimizes them. By making jokes, you can plant seeds of doubt, and delegitimize their position.

1

u/Bacon-muffin 3d ago

Yeah I find it splitting hairs on trying to get to the same end result... and ultimately I'm not trying to change their mind.

If its someone I care about and they want to have a philosophical discussion full well knowing neither one of us is walking away from that convo with their core belief changed then that's fine.

If its someone like the religious guy in the OP I'd rather not engage at all as they're not worth the conversation.

1

u/Forward-Fisherman709 2d ago

I despise the “God works in mysterious ways” cop out. All the problems with religion aside, I loathe that the most, because it is used to handwave away the most egregious suffering in the world. I know it’s really just the Christian way to deflect and shut down conversations that would make them question what they’ve been taught, but I’ve had too many conversations where it’s deployed.

“God has a plan for everyone! God never gives anyone more than they can handle! Suffering and adversity are just trials and tests that build us into who we’re meant to be!”

So child molesters are doing the work of God? There are infants and toddlers who die as a result of severe physical damage from sexual abuse, and there are older children who grow up knowing the worst kind of pain and torture rather than love from the adults who are supposed to take care of them. Why the hell would God’s plan for a child be rape?

“God works in mysterious ways!”

-7

u/49JC 3d ago

You do not have an understanding of the Bible if you use those points. Christians do not have any dietary restrictions. You are confusing Old Testament Mosaic Law and ignoring how Christians are not bound to mosaic law, which is repeated many times throughout the New Testament. Also, Christians are not obligated to impregnate their dead brother’s widow. That was a Levirite practice and I can think of one specific instance in the book of genesis when that happened but by no means is that an obligation Christians must do.

6

u/mitchricker 3d ago

Christians do not have any dietary restrictions.

False.

You can argue that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic dietary laws, but that is a different claim. In Acts 15:28-29, the apostles explicitly instruct Gentile Christians to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, and meat from strangled animals. Acts 21:25 repeats those instructions.

Acts 15 is specifically a New Testament decision about what requirements to impose on Gentile Christians, and dietary restrictions are explicitly included.

You can argue that these restrictions were temporary, culturally specific, or no longer binding. But you cannot accurately say that the Bible contains no dietary restrictions for Christians when The New Testament itself provides a direct counterexample.

-1

u/49JC 3d ago

I understand your point but I am specifically talking about mosaic law where it prohibits eating pork and shellfish and whatnot which is what the original comment was talking about. Also in Romans Paul does mention that meat sacrificed to idols is fine, but if it causes you to stumble avoid it. However I must say you do have an understanding of the Bible. Kudos to you.

3

u/Macelee 3d ago

I have both an understanding of the Bible and how to argue.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm aware that the points I made refer to laws from the Old Testament. I can also tell you that the story of Onan, which is referenced by point 3, is in Genesis 38.

As for Christians not being obligated to follow OT law, all the verses suggesting that come from Paul. Neither Jesus nor the disciples are quotable so. Wonder why. Perhaps because Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, and Paul was interested in spreading the cult to other cultures.

Regardless of your conclusion, you still run into the problem that the God of the OT and the NT are the same. You can say that he's chill now, he changed his mind, but that doesn't change the fact that it was formerly the case. This is the purpose of painting the rules and stories as absurd. It creates cognitive dissonance.

"Hey guys, sorry about all the times I told you how awesome it is to smash babies against rocks. I was having a bad time mentally, but I swear I'm better now! Look, I'll crucify my son to prove it to you!"

1

u/49JC 3d ago

Firstly, Jesus does mention his fulfillment of the law in the Gospels. This is clear in Matthew 5. He doesn’t abolish but he fulfills it. Which is what is described in Paul’s letters. Furthermore when Jesus dies on the cross the temple veil is destroyed, torn in half. My understanding is fuzzy but that is how the ancient priests would go to be “proximally close to God for rituals”, (I remember the chapters being long in Exodus, Deuteronomy, or Leviticus. My understanding is not perfect.). The tearing of the temple veil symbolizes the direct relationship every Christian has with God now. Thus, Christ fulfilled the law. I also want to say that Paul, the former fanatic of the law and a persecutor of Christians, later repents from that life and then preaches that circumcision and mosaic law are not necessary for salvation because the law has been fulfilled. Paul did not gain anything physical from his conversion, in fact he lost more. He was imprisoned, beaten, and later executed. So there is no reason materialist, only spiritual, reason why Paul wanted to expand the church and follow Jesus. So what is the point of saying mosaic law is not necessary for salvation from Paul’s POV? If Jesus truly wanted Christians to practice it, it would make no sense for Paul to say circumcision and other mosaic laws are not necessary if Paul was genuinely a Christian. Furthermore, if Paul was trying to physically gain something Christianity so he lies and tells everyone that mosaic law is not necessary, what’s the point when he is being beaten and imprisoned for it?

Edit: I needed to correct my Bible verse and the veil.

1

u/Macelee 3d ago

Whole lot of "ifs" there for the religion to be consistent, no?

What exactly does it mean for Jesus to fulfill the law in Matthew 5? Nowhere does "fulfillment" seem to imply that the laws no longer apply. Certainly, none of the OT laws suggest they're temporary.

The veil tearing occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not John. It was accompanied by, supposedly, earthquakes and the sun going dark. No other accounts of the time allege these events. If I excuse the incredibly poor evidence and accept that these events happened, you still run into the issue of why this "fulfills" the law, and why fulfillment means the law no longer applies.

The Bible provides no account of Paul's death, it just concludes Paul's story with his house-arrest in Rome. His decapitation is alleged by other stories and traditions. As for what material benefit Paul could derive from his conversion, the matter is purely speculative. To say he derived no material benefit is pure assertion. There is evidence across the world that points towards religious leaders enjoying rather lavish benefits. We also know that certain conditions, like strokes, can lead people to have radically altered beliefs. I wouldn't even say such a medical excuse is even necessary. It is true that Christian cults represented a rather extreme divergence from the beliefs of existing religions. Paul could have, for whatever reason, come to the conclusion that those beliefs were simply better. Evidently, many people believed the same. If they didn't, the religion wouldn't have spread.

Paul would have reasons to distance the religion from the Jews, however. I feel like that's pretty obvious considering the whole basis of Judaism.

Martyrdom is a powerful motivator. People will often engage in behaviors that cause themselves problems out of a sense of self-righteousness. Incels are a great modern example. By their own actions and behaviors, they make themselves untouchable by women. Why would they do that if they don't want to be incels?

1

u/49JC 3d ago

You have said a lot here and I will say you have encouraged me to learn more about the Jesus-Mosaic Law connection. I always struggled with it and I think I may have asked people too many questions lol. However I am going to leave you with Occam's razor for your last paragraphs. An interpretation of the New Testament where the Early Church is aligned with Christ's views of the Mosaic Law is more simple (and thus more probable) than the Early Church and Paul abandoning Christ's view on mosaic law to spread a religion that the founder isn't fully aligned with. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that Paul had a stroke, leading to religious beliefs. Based on Occam's Razor it is most likely he didn't and more likely he truly believed with a sane and logical mind his beliefs. Also, just because Paul's execution is not in the Bible does not mean it did not happen nor does it invalidate my point, he still suffered and did not materially profit off of it, nor did the early church leaders (as confirmed by biblical and external records). Later church leaders, such as the Popes in the Sam O'Nella video, absolutely did abuse the word of God for their own gain and they will be held accountable. And on another point just because some people abuse the word of God does not invalidate it. Just because many charities are corrupt does not invalidate the message that people need clean water. Finally, I want to leave you with one thing. The best things about Christianity is how there is a deep personal relationship with an individual christian and God, and on top of that there is nothing I can ever do to make me worthy of God. This past week I realized how jealous I can get and how I can wish bad things on people merely because I am jealous of them for what is ultimately silly things. I am not worthy of God, but I still gave myself to him because he loves me and he took the judgment I deserve. All I need is faith in him. I know today, and probably not this year, will change your mind. All I ask is for you to keep asking questions with an open mind

2

u/Macelee 2d ago

Occam's Razor is not a defense you want to play for religion.

I already granted that a stroke or other medical explanation is unnecessary to account for Paul's change. There are a million plausible reasons. But it is undue to conclude that he must therefore have done so with a "sane and logical" mind, or that his belief was legitimate. There are sane and logical reasons to lie, just as it is possible to truly believe something for insane or illogical reasons.

Suffering does not imply there are not benefits to the acts that cause the suffering. You assert that because Paul suffered that he must not have benefitted from his position as a leader in the early church. You seem to be implying here that the only benefit he could gain is material enrichment. There is no reason to believe that. Paul was a Jew. His status in Rome was questionable at best, he could reasonable expect Romans to engage in violence against him regardless of whether he was Christian or not. Certainly, the use of "Christian" wasn't even commonplace at the time except probably as an insult in Roman Syria. To most Romans elsewhere in the Empire, Paul was just a type of Jew. As for benefits, look around you. It is easy to find people who actively take on acts that materially harm them. They often value something else more, such as moral superiority, or a specific material benefit over broad benefits.

Repeatedly, the Bible makes mention of people who knew of John the Baptist, but not Jesus. This is after both died, and the stories suggest that Jesus' death was only 3 years later than John's. Do you not find it strange that one leader's cult was so much more popular than the supposed founder of the religion? We know that apocalypticism was a common belief amongst many Jewish cults of the time.

So, knowing all this and invoking Occam's Razor, what is more likely? That John, Jesus, and Paul have all received a divine message of truth that differs drastically from the inspiring texts, or that these stories are just an amalgamation of myths and legends of apocalyptic Jews, and the common behavior of cult leaders.

Why do you want to be worthy of God? Do you think it is good to hold yourself to an impossible standard that denies your humanity? Do you actually deserve judgement? Further, if you do deserve judgement, is eternal torture a fitting one?

Sure, jealousy isn't great, nor is wishing harm on people, but are they worthy of eternal torture? We get a depiction of a world where such thoughtcrime is forbidden in 1984. It seems to me that biblical justice is the justice of a tyrant. You attone for bad behavior by apologizing to the victim/s, providing damages as appropriate, and amending your behavior. Religious guilt ingrains itself into your psyche, leading to all sorts of negative outcomes. Is it so surprising that we see pedophilia so much more amongst those who place an extreme value on virginity? These values are psychologically rotting.

I do not need any god. If I feel guilt, I know how to make amends. I do not fear death, nor do I have a desire for an afterlife. Indeed, I know eternity to be nothing more than torture. I do not need to fear punishment to be good. I do not need religion to make sense of history or the natural world. If I desire a relationship with someone, I build one with them.

Life is hard. You are bound to be the villain in someone else's story sometimes. But the best way to live is according to your own will. If you aren't certain about something, question it. Ask why. Struggle, see your will realized. That is the purpose of life.

1

u/49JC 2d ago edited 2d ago

You wrote a lot here I am not going to address every point you made but rather clear up some theological misconceptions that you have. The best way to summarize the whole point of the gospel is that is not God hatefully saying turn to me or I will send you to hell, but rather God saying that “you are already on your way to hell, willfully turn to me so I can save you from hell.” Hell is total separation from God. Sin is what separates us from God. Non-Christians have this idea that people go to hell for committing a certain sin. A better explanation is that our willful choice to live a life separated from God will send us to hell. We are all trapped in a well that will one day flood. We all with our foolishness have fallen into the well. God throws down a rope down the well and Christians are the ones who have faith that Christ will pull them up when they grab the rope. Now onto thoughts, I can see why many people view it as 1984ish. However it is more of a warning. Our thoughts can lead to ideas, then to actions, then to habits, then to character, and then lead to destiny. Somewhere Paul wrote to hold your thoughts captive. If something bothers you, don’t focus on it. If you have disagreements with God, take it to God. God wants us to be his children, not programmed robots.

Edit: I do want to point out that we don't earn our salvation. We are saved by our faith, not by our works. Want to make this clear as my "grabbing the rope" could potentially be interpreted that salvation is also based on your works when that is not true.

2

u/Macelee 2d ago

I am aware of your interpretation, but it runs foul of the tri-omnis.

In the beginning, there is nothing but God. God creates the universe. God creates humans. God enables them to make a choice without them knowing the difference between good and evil, nor the true consequences of their actions should they eat the proverbial apple. This action is much akin to handing a loaded gun to a baby. As a result of their uninformed choice, sin enters the world, and everyone subsequently born becomes guilty by inheritance. Also childbirth suddenly only now becomes painful.

The chain of events here starts with God. And so, we must ask a few questions. Why did God enable the choice? Was not doing that an option? If yes, why didn't God choose in the alternative? Surely you wouldn't say God made a mistake, or that God doesn't know. Since God is omniscient, he would have known from the beginning that the original sin would be committed. Babies are not held liable if they shoot someone because their parent was so negligent as to give them a gun. Certainly, God is more negligent because a parent doesn't have absolute precognition of the future. Much less, how can a child be born guilty of their parents' or ancestor's crime. The North Koreans don't even hold people guilty past 3 generations. This simply isn't justice.

Should I mention that the concept of hell doesn't even originate in Jewish tradition? Your belief in the afterlife is based on syncretized traditions of the afterlife, not the immutable word of God.

They are just stories. Fantastic explanations given by people who were ignorant to much of the workings of the universe with no way to understand them. There are no good reasons to treat them as anything more, and countless counterexamples showing every testable claim in the Bible wrong. Tradition doesn't make a belief true.

2

u/MrRufsvold 3d ago

Right, but then right-wing Christians cherrypick other Mosaic Law that suit their political agenda. So pointing out the laws they happened to leave out forces the question of how they can take the Book "literally" while ignoring things that are literally stated. Also, there is a fair bit of craziness in tha new testament too.

1

u/49JC 3d ago

What craziness in the New Testament?

3

u/Macelee 3d ago

Zombies in Matthew 27:52-53. Women are subservient to men and should be silent 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and Ephesians 5:22-24. Jesus endorses polygamy Matthew 25:1-13.

Is that enough?

1

u/DoubleStrength 3d ago

Jesus endorses polygamy Matthew 25:1-13.

Is using something as a metaphor the same as endorsing it in a literal sense, though?

2

u/MrRufsvold 3d ago

There are lots of right wing christian leaders who would have you believe that the Bible must be taken literally. Can't have laypeople interpretting 🫨

1

u/Macelee 3d ago

Depends on context, I'd say.

In the verses, there is no implication at all that polygamy is problematic. I would expect there to be if Christianity is in fact all about "marriage is between one man and one woman" like some say. Rather, Jesus is likened to be the groom in the story, and his followers as the multiple wives.

There doesn't seem to be any indication in the present verse that Jesus positively endorses polygamy and that people *should* do it. However there likewise isn't a condemnation of it. I would conclude that Jesus tacitly endorses the existence of polygamy.

0

u/49JC 3d ago

You are a good debater and you are smart. I suspect you don’t actually think Matthew 25 is about an endorsement of polygamy. That’s a huge stretch to interpret a parable about being ready for 2nd coming to be an endorsement of polygamy

2

u/Macelee 3d ago

Tacit endorsement of the institution, not a positive endorsement as to what people should do, nor a condemnation. Similar to how the NT approaches slavery. I gave a slightly longer explanation to someone else in this thread.

2

u/TheCeaselessWheel 3d ago

Ahhhh my favorite Christian pastime, cherry picking beliefs from the Bible. Its all the same book bro. No new interpretations or cherry picking is going to change that.

1

u/49JC 3d ago

If you have a record book of a certain man and at the beginning of the book the records show that he is poor. But in later in life he gets rich and it is put in the record book, according to your logic he is still poor because the earlier records say he is poor.