Skip to main content

Refuting the Ridiculous Claim That Sola Scriptura Condones to Certain Evils in Society

Official Roman Catholic doctrine doesn't teach that Sola Scriptura supposedly condones to certain evils. What should be very amazingly blasphemous is that a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist (who will be referred to as "Alaska Boy" as not to get openly personal with that guy) has gone as far as to say that Sola Scriptura condones to certain evils. When asked what evils these are he mentions are death penalty and slavery.

The problem with that this guy who I call "Alaska Boy" is that he's got a poor understanding of these two areas. Let's take a look at what the Bible says about death penalty and slavery. Let's take a Scriptural view at both areas to refute Alaska Boy's claims. I waited for a long time to write this entry. Hopefully this will convict him of his heresies before it's too late.

The death penalty is supported by Scriptures

Whether he likes it or not the Bible actually calls for death penalty. It was God who spoke the death penalty into action. The same God who mentioned in Exodus 20:13 that you will not murder is the same God who ordered the death penalty. If he ever bothers to read through Exodus, he will realize that God already called for death penalty some chapters later. Moses called the death penalty in Exodus 32 for worshiping the golden calf. The death penalty is called upon in the Bible many times because God commanded it.

If I'm not wrong his response was like, "Don't bring Moses into the argument." I wonder does he realize that it was God who was talking to Moses and the Jews to carry out His judgment? It was God who commanded the Jews to put to death wicked civilizations? He plays the typical double standard of appealing to the Old Testament whenever it's convenient for him. He quotes Leviticus to justify the erroneous Roman Catholic priesthood while he says that "Well that's the Jews! We're not Jews."

Slavery in the Bible is different from the common notion of slavery

I guess he doesn't do enough research at all. If he realizes this slavery in the Bible is not like the slavery we know. I wonder if he has considered reading the following verses:
  • Exodus 21:20 would be the department social welfare and development rule against mistreating slaves.
  • Exodus 23:12 gave the household servant a day off whenever it was the Sabbath.
  • Leviticus 19:20 prohibits anyone from having sex with another man's slave.
  • Leviticus 25:39-43 says that a slave is to be released on the seventh year unless he/she loves their master and they are to be marked.
  • Deuteronomy 23:15 has the law that forbids chasing and returning escaped slaves.
  • Proverbs 29:21 encourages to treat household helpers well.
  • Proverbs 30:10 makes it a crime to slander one's household servant.

In short, the Bible requires servants to treat slaves well. This was not a matter of buying and selling slaves but voluntary slavery because of financial difficulty The slaves were to be treated with utmost care and respect. While the Bible condones slavery but not the image of slavery that one sees in the history of the slave trade.

Conclusion

This man shows the huge problem of treating the Scriptures like a buffet. He only picks at it when it's convenient. It's also time to ask this man the following questions and answer them to himself:
  • Who spoke about death penalty and slavery to Moses? Was it just Moses making it or did God directly speak to Him? 
  • Are you insinuating that God Himself who spoke to Moses has condoned to certain evils? If so aren't you implying that God is not sinless and holy as you believe?
  • If you say that death penalty is inapplicable because it was given to the Jews then why are you still quoting verses from Leviticus to justify the Roman Catholic priesthood? 
  • Would that mean acts like human sacrifice, bestiality and incest should now be tolerated because they were given to the Jews? Would you also say that the Ten Commandments is now irrelevant in the New Testament Church? 

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Do Feminists Ever Realize That Women Shouldn't Use Acts of Violence Against Men?

It's irritating to be told that men shouldn't use violence on women but the other way around is okay. No, it's not okay to hit anyone regardless of gender out of anger or frustration. If men shouldn't hit women except in acts of self-defense then the other way round should apply. But you have to remember the stupidity of selective justice and selective outrage of feminists. They think men should respect them while they think discriminating against men is okay. Their quest for "equality" is nothing more than a big joke.

Why is it usually a big fuzz when a man hits a woman but not so many people react if a woman hits a man? That kind of hypocrisy is worth addressing. They say men shouldn't hit women because they are "weaker" but is it okay for a person of lower rank to attack a person of higher rank? The word submission doesn't exist in the feminist dictionary unless it's men submitting to them. Whether they like it or not the husband is t…

You Can't Preach About God's Love For Sinners Without Preaching About His Wrath Against Sin

It's a problem that so many quack preachers love to preach God's love for sinners but not about God's wrath against them because He must punish both the sin and the sinner. Everything from God's love to His wrath is dictated by the fact that He is holy and you are not. The message about God's love for sinners will make no sense if you don't preach about God's wrath against sin first. I remembered listening to "Hell's Best Kept Secret" and "True and False Conversion" by Ray Comfort. There was this point where Kirk Cameron talked about what if I sold my property to save someone from a disease. If the person doesn't know anything about the disease then my selling of all my property to pay for the badly needed treatment won't make sense. Another illustration was all about the flight. You have to tell the person that the parachute is not meant to improve the flight but to tell the person that it's for emergency reasons. If you…

It's Not Okay to Be Blindly Loyal to the Pope and His Army of Pharisees

Some rabid Roman Catholics keep sensationalizing the sins of fraud pastors (as if true born again Christians ever support them) while they keep hiding the sins of their priests or Pharisees. They also say that born again Christians are blindly loyal to the pastor never mind that they are blindly loyal to the Pope and his Pharisees. Blind loyalty towards a a prosperity gospel pastor, a so-called successor of a so-called last messenger or any quack preacher is no different than blind loyalty towards the Pope and his Pharisees. Worse, Roman Catholics believe that their Pharisees are instruments in saving their souls or that the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands never mind all the priestly scandals are telling them otherwise.

I could remember how often Bible reading is discouraged (and yet some of these rabid Roman Catholics tell me I should read the Bible and I can't get wrong with it) because it could drive me crazy from reading it. Some Roman Catholics I've met &quo…

Don't Even Think About Legalizing Prostitution or Sex Trade

There's some people who seek to legalize prostitution. Some "rational" atheists are already talking about prostitution should be legalized so it could be controlled by the government. The claim that "studies" show that prohibition doesn't work is a lie straight from the pits of Hell. The Israelites were doing sin not because God forbade it but because they were disobedient and the rulers did nothing to prevent those sins. It's not surprising is that the same people who seek to legalize prostitution also want to legalize narcotics and hard liquor all in the name of "succeeding in the war against them".

The logic behind legalizing prostitution is that so the government can control them and tax them. But the problem with the quest to legalize prostitution is that it encourages the sin rather than discourage it. The problem is not the war against prostitution but ignoring Ecclesiastes 8:11. Do you know why the war against prostitution isn't wo…

Is Salvation in Peter's Hands (As Well as the Popes) Because Jesus Supposedly Gave Him the Literal Keys of Heaven?

According to a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist (who I'll probably dub as Mr. Whistle when I mention him) he claimed that salvation is in the hands of Peter because Jesus gave the former the keys of Heaven. The guy is clearly taking things out of context with what he says. I wonder does he even bother to check out the idioms of the Bible since some passages use a figure of speech instead of speaking everything literally?

If he can't get Matthew 16:18 correctly where he said that Peter the Rock even when the Good News Translation for Roman Catholics says otherwise (and worse for them Peter is differentiated as a rock and the Rock is clearly not him) then he also misinterprets Matthew 16:19. Let's try to understand Matthew 16:19 with the keys and what they really mean. In his interpretation he's already telling everyone that born again Christians should just go back to the Roman Catholic institution because the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands. I don&…

Atheists With Abusive Mindsets Do Exist

It's a myth over the modern world that there's no such thing as an atheist with an abusive mindset. I can see atheists who claim that abuses only come through theism. I don't deny that there's such a thing as religious people with an abusive mindset such as Roman Catholic fanatics, Islamic extremists and any form of religious extremism. The problem of the claim is that it denies the reality that there's such a thing as atheists who have an abusive mindset. One such person is the late Christopher Hitchens who claims that he has the right o treat religion with ridicule, hatred and contempt. Isn't that an example of an atheist with an abusive mindset? Sad to say, Hitchens himself is still cursing God from the pits of Hell. Christians should pray that Richard Dawkins wouldn't make the same wrong decision as Hitchens.

One horrible atheist blogger claimed he was indeed one of the most scientific people on Earth. Just reading his blog alone is so tiresome that I&…

Why This Ministry DOES NOT Support the Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baptist Church is a so-called Baptist institution founded by Fred Phelps who is a lawyer and a theologian. Is it your average Baptist assembly or is this another of Satan's brain children? I would like to present my stand why this ministry does not support the Westboro Baptist Church and why as a Baptist, I do not support them either:
The founder Fred Phelps who serves as its pastor. I do find it disturbing he says that he supports sound doctrine of good Christian preachers of the past like John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon but his doctrine is not sound at all. His preaching is definitely not balanced. While I do appreciate him attacking the Great Whore of Revelation, apostasy, ecumenism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and a lot of sins however he is no better than the Roman Catholic institution which he frequently criticizes. Although he claims to be a Calvinist and a Spurgeon fan, however many of those who are Calvinist preachers like Paul Washer, John …