The Religion Thread

[bannination]

"Oh look, it's incest the movie coming soon!!!"

You are to Christianity what Homerfobe is to homosexuals.

I didn't write the bible, I just read it.

[Ombudsman]

Oh look, it's incest the movie coming soon!!!




Looks like it has some strong actors in it, along with Emma...... not gonna be enough to keep this one from sinking I'm afraid.

Jennifer Connelly you say? Yup, I'd repopulate the earth.

Glad to see the IMDB page refers to it as "fantasy."

[Bungalow Bill]

"Get Moe, Larry, and Curly up here and tell 'em to bring their shovels.
We've got a ton of shit piling up here we've got to get rid of."

[homerfobe]

"Oh look, it's incest the movie coming soon!!!"

You are to Christianity what Homerfobe is to homosexuals.

I didn't write the bible, I just read it.

Comparing me to Bannination is an insult. He has no scruples at all. Check this out: He didn't write the Bible, he just reads it, and he's read where God said that being queer is a filthy abomination, so he questions why God made fags, yet he doesn't believe there is a God, so he endorses the nasty ass faggot way of living. One weird, mixed up piece of work that Banni is.

"Get Moe, Larry, and Curly up here and tell 'em to bring their shovels.
We've got a ton of shit piling up here we've got to get rid of."

I think you pretty well described Bannination to a tee. Thank you, you made my day.

[Mr.B]

"I didn't write the BIBLE, I just read it."

Yeah, I know. You read just enough to cherry-pick and ridicule. I'm used to you.

I've never claimed to be a Bible scholar myself; I know enough about it that I'll not engage myself anymore in arguments about what it says or means, or the whys. You are correct though when you once said that most atheists are more Biblically informed than most Christians......how else could atheists pick out their criticisms unless they knew where to cherry-pick?

[Ombudsman]

"I didn't write the BIBLE, I just read it."

Yeah, I know. You read just enough to cherry-pick and ridicule. I'm used to you.

I've never claimed to be a Bible scholar myself; I know enough about it that I'll not engage myself anymore in arguments about what it says or means, or the whys. You are correct though when you once said that most atheists are more Biblically informed than most Christians......how else could atheists pick out their criticisms unless they knew where to cherry-pick?

That's pretty amusing commentary coming from a cafeteria Christian.

[O Really]

The issue, Mr.B, arises primarily with those who claim a literal inerrantcy in the Bible. One doesn't have to read very far, nor be a theological student to find that there are unresolveable conflicts within the Bible itself, and even more between the text content of the Bible and the interpretations of various religious sects. So if a person wants to argue with a literal inerrantist, s/he only has to find one mutually exclusive conflict and argument is over. Now, for those who believe the Bible represents the word of God, but also understands that it was written by humans, in terms understandable to their time and culture, and that it has been translated several times by other humans that might affect some details, then the argument becomes a bit more difficult.

[Mr.B]

"That's pretty amusing commentary coming from a cafeteria Christian."

Thank you; I aim to please. You aim too, please.

"The issue, Mr.B, arises primarily with those who claim a literal inerrantcy in the Bible. One doesn't have to read very far, nor be a theological student to find that there are unresolveable conflicts within the Bible itself, and even more between the text content of the Bible and the interpretations of various religious sects. So if a person wants to argue with a literal inerrantist, s/he only has to find one mutually exclusive conflict and argument is over. Now, for those who believe the Bible represents the word of God, but also understands that it was written by humans, in terms understandable to their time and culture, and that it has been translated several times by other humans that might affect some details, then the argument becomes a bit more difficult."

I'm certain there are millions who would argue with you on that point. Inerrancies are generally found by those who are looking for them; i.e., looking for something that appears to be impossible or unbelievable. If you're not a believer to begin with.....well...

[bannination]

I'm certain there are millions who would argue with you on that point. Inerrancies are generally found by those who are looking for them; i.e., looking for something that appears to be impossible or unbelievable. If you're not a believer to begin with.....well...

No argument there, that's how we've progressed. Present a theory, test the theory, if theory doesn't match reality, throw it out.

You're suggesting in a special case, we should disregard inconsistencies and failing theory's and accept them anyway. If that were the case we'd still be performing lobotomies.

Food for thought. Looking for errors is always prudent.

[O Really]

But it doesn't even have to be considered an error unless you're trying to make the argument that the entire work is literal and inerrant. Inconsistencies between different authors over a period of more than a hundred years, coupled with translations from an essentially dead language through several other languages and language revisions should reasonably be expected.

[rstrong]

But it doesn't even have to be considered an error unless you're trying to make the argument that the entire work is literal and inerrant. Inconsistencies between different authors over a period of more than a hundred years, coupled with translations from an essentially dead language through several other languages and language revisions should reasonably be expected.

Not to mention lots of politically motivated editing early on, with whole books of the Bible with opposing viewpoints thrown out and banned early on.

[Bungalow Bill]

No, it was Noah who had the deep doo doo problem.

You'd have to cherry pick to find the stuff in the Bible that actually
makes sense. The crazy stuff is all over the place, especially in the
OT. Some really strange shit in there. I do give them a break for living
in a rather primitive time.

[O Really]

The term "cherry pick" generally refers to the selection of one piece of data that supports a conclusion while ignoring other relevant data that would not support it. Not to say there isn't cherry picking among Bible scholars and detractors, but the organization of the Bible lends itself to selective citation, a practice followed every day by whoever is writing the Billy Graham column now (among many others).

[Ombudsman]

I'm certain there are millions who would argue with you on that point. Inerrancies are generally found by those who are looking for them; i.e., looking for something that appears to be impossible or unbelievable. If you're not a believer to begin with.....well...

I assume you meant to say "errors" are found by those who are looking for them, otherwise your statement doesn't make much sense. Why would someone who believes the Bible is the word of God not test it by looking for errors? It's not like they're hard to find. Just start at the beginning with the two contradictory creation stories and then move on. Hell the different accounts of Jesus' last words should be enough to convince even the most ardent believer that it's not an innerrent collection of stories.

[Mr.B]

"There are also the cherry picking bigots that harp on one "sin" while completely ignoring other "sins" listed in the same book or sometimes even the same passage."

By "completely ignoring other "sins", you must mean the 'harmless sins', such as infidelity, destroying your body with drugs, seducing children (Jesus never mentioned pedophilia, you know), etc.

[neoplacebo]

Most people drank beer back in the day...water was iffy and sometimes poison. If they didn't have beer, they drank sand. And to this day, the area is famed for the magnitude and quality of its hashish.

[Mr.B]

"What I was referring to is the long list of things than have magically become not sinful anymore."
Such as homosexuality, divorce, and martial infidelity? Oh wait...I'm thinking like a liberal! Silly me!

"Of course Jesus never mentioned pedophilia, it was the social norm in his time."
According to whom?...the Bible or one of the Three Ugly Sisters?

"What does the Bible say about drugs? Booze was pretty popular with the Jesus Gang."
I dunno what the Bible says about drugs; Jesus never mentioned them either, just like He "never mentioned homosexuality".
Wine was the popular drink, but we don't know the alcoholic content. Most Christians discourage alcohol altogether because it can be a hindrance to witnessing to someone else and drunkenness destroys families.
"He gave his disciples bread, saying, "This is my body", and gave them wine saying, "This is my blood." My guess is that the hashish and "This is my breath" was one of the things edited out."
That's what you get for guessing. Wrong guess. Those were symbolic as an atonement for sin; but you knew that. That ridicule thingy, you know.

[O Really]

"symbolic as an atonement for sin." Of course. Try explaining that to the literalists.

[Mr.B]

"symbolic as an atonement for sin." Of course. Try explaining that to the literalists."

Impossible.

[O Really]

"symbolic as an atonement for sin." Of course. Try explaining that to the literalists."

Impossible.

'Zactly. But those are the ones that keep the ridiculers in material.