Note: so that you can check I'm telling the truth, I have included references to Bible passages. If you don't know how these work, click here.
Did you know the Bible says there is no God? Psalm 14 says "There is no God."
Of course if you look at it in context: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" it comes out a bit differently.
A useful trick, applicable to a wide range of situations.
If someone laughs at you you should kill them. That's what Elisha did! (2Kings 2:21-24).
Well, yes it is what Elisha did, and the Bible correctly reports it. But nowhere does the Bible say that Elisha was right to do it. The world is not divided into goodies and baddies, and nor is the Bible. Even prophets and saints still make mistakes.
The Bible often reports but without approving - but we don't need to point this out.
A thief can never go to heaven - it says so in 1Corinthians 6:9-10.
So what about the thief who was crucified with Jesus - whom Jesus tells explicitly 'Today, you will be with me in Paradise'?
You must not be tattooed - it says so in Leviticus 19:28.
Er... surely that is part of the old Law - the Law that is no longer binding on Christians? If we insist on that, surely we have to insist on not wearing cotton and polyester socks (Lev 19:19) and on not eating pork? (Lev 11:7)
Ah, but those two are part of the ceremonial law, which is indeed no longer binding. But not being tattooed is obviously part of the moral law - which is binding.
Where does the Bible distinguish the ceremonial law from the moral law? It doesn't, does it? I think you'd better take your socks off - and give me that pork pie.
Murderers can't go to heaven - it says so in Revelation 22:15.
So it does... And dogs as well, I see. Have you told the dog owners in your Church that their beloved Fido is going to be locked out of heaven?
No of course not. Anyway 'dogs' is obviously metaphorical.
"Dogs" is metaphorical, but "murderers" is literal? How do you tell? Is there anything in the text to mark them off?
The distinction is obvious - dog owners give money to the church, murderers don't.
Oh, of course! How stupid of me.
"Love your enemies"? Yes, I know our version says that - Matthew 5:43 - but we can ignore it. Dr Strabismus (whom God preserve) of Utrecht claims that the text is corrupt here: it should read "Buy me a curry."
Has he any evidence for the corruption? A funny in the text? An early variant? A quotation in another source? An early translation? No? So can you point to any verse in the entire Bible which no one has challenged? Just one will do? No? No.
Are you accusing Dr Strabismus (whom God preserve) of Utrecht of claiming the verse is corrupt just because he didn't want to obey it?
Accusing? Moi?
It does say that you cannot serve God and money (Luke 16:13) but of course that society was very different from ours; they had no cars, no computers, not even self-igniting barbecues. We can't apply their ideas to our world.
But what have self-igniting barbies got to do with choosing between God and money? Not a lot.
It does say (Matt 20:25-26) that Church officials should not have authority over the people, but the Church has always interpreted this as meaning that Church officials should mediate God's authority over the people.
And why is a good Protestant setting Church tradition above the authority of Scripture? For a Protestant, support from Church tradition - even protestant tradition - should be evidence against.
When Jesus says of Jairus's daughter "She is not dead, but asleep" (Luke 8:52) he means that death is to be understood as a sleep; that death will lead to a final awakening at the end of time.
Or perhaps he actually meant "She is not dead, but asleep" - like, because she wasn't, actually, dead, but was, in fact, er, asleep?
For another example you might like to look at typology: I can't, I'll get too angry to type.
Examples are all too long to explain in this little block: just pop over to here for an interesting and instructive case study.