Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.
Options
Comments
-
The only thing I said about morality is that I refuse to take it out of the equation as you wanted to in #233.
I am just lazy with the quote thing.
I see morality as really a human condition. I think you seem to think because we are designed to think like this then a "god" would also view things in a similar manner, now being we are being theoritical here... I was making the point we cannot make assumptions based on our own limited view on the world if we are trying to understand something that we probably cannot really understand....0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,554 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 33777
Worm partaaaaaaayyyyy!!
I said this very thing to my better half many years ago, after a question just like the one mentioned...
And it was about a week later that her grandad died
Bad timing and taught me something about keeping my thoughts to myself.
She still hasn't really forgiven me, some 17 years later.0 -
I said this very thing to my better half many years ago, after a question just like the one mentioned...
And it was about a week later that her grandad died
Bad timing and taught me something about keeping my thoughts to myself.
She still hasn't really forgiven me, some 17 years later.
I hear ya. My own foot has been no stranger to my mouth on occasion...
On the upside though, worm partaaaaaay!
0 -
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Only if her name is Anoia. There's something sexy about being goddess of stuff stuck in drawers, heh, heh, heh.
Or the 'oh my god' of hangovers. That fcuker has some explaining to do....0 -
Advertisement
-
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
challenged people on their knowledge of history
Of course why not?
You're not an authority on history, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. You can ask someone to produce sources and supports for their opinions, that would be fine. Challenging someones opinions because you think you're better at history is an argument from authority. A logical fallacy. Made worse by you're lacking of authority, making it a dishonest logical fallacy.
It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it's bad argument.denigrated scientists and academics
Or perhaps just defended my ideas around this, but you can call it denigrated if it makes you feel better.
Ahem:Sit on boards and call themselves academics
I'd call it denigrated. May have been intended humourously I'll admit. Combined with your comments re:history it kind of just comes off as massively self-righteous. (Also, it's not an argument from authority if you challenge someone to produce credentials and they then do.)yet think it totally acceptable as a holy text?
I think if people choose to use it as a holy text so be it.
Why?organised religions generally don't have the same 'pick and choose' mentality
Really? Explain... I actually do not know what point you are making here?
Religions don't look at their holy texts as "Aesops fables for adults".
This definition of christianity you gave:
is not one many christian churches agree with. In fact by this definition, many christian churches are arguably not christian.Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ and the new testement essentially a collection of Strories and parables for one to aspire to, how you choose to interpret them is entirely up to youholding grievances against institutionalised discrimination with being a racist
I think the comments of Bannasidhe seem somewhat exaggerated, she gives the idea that she cannot leave her home without Christians somehow trying to descriminate against her... I found her statement
you really wanna tell me Christians don't try and impose anything on me???
At very least sterotyping...
Discrimination against practicing homosexuals and women is enshrined in the tenets of many christian churches. Catholic, greek orthodox, american evangelicals... And 'justified' because of passages in the bible. That's not stereotyping it's just fact.
I don't know anything about the amount of discrimination faced by women or homosexuals at the hands of christians on a daily basis, as I'm none of those things and don't claim to speak for any, but I am aware that it happens, and seemingly so are you, given you haven't actually denied it.
So your defense that you think previous posters are exaggerating the amount of discrimination they face, and that the actual amount they face doesn't justify their animosity towards the institutions that perpetuate and perpetrate it rings disgustingly hollow.What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing to hold that position?
See things as you may, I have not actually tried to prove anything on this thread, only to suggest that any argument either side of this too some degree is pointless, idiotic even!
But that is not to say I do not give some respect to people in what they choose to believe...
An argument was then made that these people are imposing on legal rights due to something they believe in..... Perhaps but that is society and democracy....
What I see is you dodging my question, and to an extent obfuscating it by splitting it into two parts.
Now the threads moved on, so please feel under no obligation to reply to me. But if you do, I'm not really interested in having you deal with anything else in this post except the following, a restatement of my last posts question:
You see the bible as dodgy as a historical source.
You see it as acceptable as a text people take literally.
How do you reconcile these two positions?0 -
You're not an authority on history, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. You can ask someone to produce sources and supports for their opinions, that would be fine. Challenging someones opinions because you think you're better at history is an argument from authority. A logical fallacy. Made worse by you're lacking of authority, making it a dishonest logical fallacy.
It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it's bad argument.
Position of authority... This actually made me laugh!!!
I think somehow you think cause someone on a forum has indicated they have a Phd in history that I should abondon my own ideas.
My initial comment really had very little to do with history probably more to do with logic around the arguments people make, I was dragged into a history debate, a pointless tangent which really held no weight to my original argument... If anything I was in agreement with a lot of what was said in terms of looking the bible as a historical source, it actually got to the point where my use of the word 'history' was being questioned... this is pseudo history or whatever... OK I get it... And???
The argument focused more on how people choose to interpret the bible if they so wish to do so... Some take it very litterally while others take it more so in the context to which it was written....Challenging someones opinions because you think you're better at history
I think you are intent on making stuff up....This definition of christianity you gave:
is not one many christian churches agree with. In fact by this definition, many christian churches are arguably not christian.
I would argue that 90% of people that go to mass have never read the bible, they go because their mammy would get upset if they didn't!
I would agree and argue that people who call themselves Christians really do not know what it means!Discrimination against practicing homosexuals and women is enshrined in the tenets of many christian churches. Catholic, greek orthodox, american evangelicals... And 'justified' because of passages in the bible. That's not stereotyping it's just fact.
You are talking about legislation, if a peopel choose to pass legislation due to their own religious and personal beliefs then that is a problem with the workings of government.
Can you explain what you mean by discrimination?
Not being able to get married I agree is discrimination, again this is something that needs to be addressed in the Dail... But what other discrimination are you talking about?So your defense that you think previous posters are exaggerating the amount of discrimination they face, and that the actual amount they face doesn't justify their animosity towards the institutions that perpetuate and perpetrate it rings disgustingly hollow.
You are entitled to your opinion, I think you and the previous poster are banting the word discrimination around and applying it to an entire categorisation of people indiscriminately.... Essentailly I think your argument no more enlightened to those small minded people that harbour these idiotic prejudices.
YesYou see the bible as dodgy as a historical source.
It is not for me to impose my will on what other people choose to believe.You see it as acceptable as a text people take literally.
I have already stated, I am in disagreement with people that take the bible litterally, as a text I personally do not think that was its intention regardless of what your belief maybe.How do you reconcile these two positions?
Your questions has no argument so nothing to reconcile.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Position of authority... This actually made me laugh!!!
I think somehow you think cause someone on a forum has indicated they have a Phd in history that I should abondon my own ideas.
Actually I was referring to your behaviour before that argument:
as evidenced here:
Sets yourself up as an authority on history by implication of having studied it, simultaneously casts doubt on your opponents authority to speak.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Have you ever studied history?
Reinforces that you are claiming familiarity with the subject matter.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I like history,
Zombrex didn't claim to be, so this is a meaningless exclamation obviously intended to cast doubt on the validity of his opinions.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Well you abviosuly not a scentist!ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
Besides this is history we are talking about, people can theorise as much as they want... Unless you have a time machine?
Outright misrepresentation of the field you'd previously claimed familiarity with. (Incidentally, I'm not aware of any field in which students are encouraged to "theorise as much as they want.". Even art has rules.)I was dragged into a history debate
You started the history debate. I've just posted the excerpts from your posts where you brought it up.I think you are intent on making stuff up....
Once again you attempt to simply discredit an opponent.I would argue that 90% of people that go to mass have never read the bible, they go because their mammy would get upset if they didn't!
I would agree and argue that people who call themselves Christians really do not know what it means!
You're agreeing your definition of christianity is wrong? Okay.You are talking about legislation, if a peopel choose to pass legislation due to their own religious and personal beliefs then that is an problem with the workings of government.
Can you explain what you mean by discrimination?
Not being able to get married I agree is discrimination, again this is something that needs to be addressed in the Dail... But what other discrimination are you talking about?
You are entitled to your opinion, I think you and the previous poster are banting the word discrimination around and applying it to an entire categorisation of people indiscriminately.... Essentailly I think your argument no more enlightened to those small minded people that harbour these idiotic prejudices.
I am not talking about legislation and I have given you absolutely no reason to conclude that I am talking about legislation. I'm talking about the run of the mill mundane day to day stuff that you're desperately trying to not have to talk about. Like preaching to non-believers that it's wrong to love who you want to love, and preaching to non-believers that they should thank god for the gift of pregnancy through rape. I'm talking about what the churches believe, what they preach and what they encourage their followers to believe, and preach, and act upon.Yes
It is not for me to impose my will on what other people choose to believe.
I have already stated, I am in disagreement with people that take the bible litterally, as I text I personally do not think that was its intention regardless of what your belief maybe.
Your questions has no argument so nothing to reconcile.
You think the bible is inaccurate. You think it shouldn't be taken literally. But you won't defend that opinion in the face of someone who disagrees. Because that would be imposing your will on them.
Meanwhile you happily hide behind free speech to tell me you think my views small-minded?
You are entitled to your opinions. You are entitled to your opinions of my opinions. What your opinions are not entitled to is my respect. And frankly, I don't want yours.0 -
Sets yourself up as an authority on history by implication of having studied it, simultaneously casts doubt on your opponents authority to speak.
Reinforces that you are claiming familiarity with the subject matter.
Asking someone have they ever studied history, could just mean... "Have you ever studied history???" I found their argument lacking in any real logic.
In terms of setting myself up as an authority, these are your words not mine....
Am I familiar with the subject matter... Yes I do read history books, I studied at a grammar school in Derry, my A levels did include History, Ancient History, Art and Math... Granted not a degree in history or a Phd but I would still consider myself familiar with the subject matter.
You seem to be picking at things I said then making these massive jumps in assumptions...Zombrex didn't claim to be, so this is a meaningless exclamation obviously intended to cast doubt on the validity of his opinions.
Yes well done! I was being facetious...Outright misrepresentation of the field you'd previously claimed familiarity with. (Incidentally, I'm not aware of any field in which students are encouraged to "theorise as much as they want.". Even art has rules.)
I think your arguments lack in real logic, me stating that I like history, asking people have they ever looked at history making a wise crack about them not being a scientist.. is in no way suggesting I am an expert in the field more so that I think their argument lacks any real substance.
Bannasidhe argument really had nothing to do with the original comments, she took exception to my use of the word "history" when referring to the bible but ultimately is somewhat in agreement to it validity as a source.
I make a joke about academics sitting on boards all day so I am pretty sure she simply wanted to put me in my place.You started the history debate. I've just posted the excerpts from your posts where you brought it up.
I mentioned history, I did not expect a rant on the history of the IRA..Once again you attempt to simply discredit an opponent.
Yes, if I agree with the idea or if someone convinces me of their argument I will take it on board else I am going to question and challenge peoples point of view.You're agreeing your definition of christianity is wrong? Okay.
This is a loaded question, people could argue what Christianity is to them.. etc.. etc.. I do admit though and would challenge Christians if you are going to believe in something whole heartedly, I suggest you at least read what it is you are buying into...I am not talking about legislation and I have given you absolutely no reason to conclude that I am talking about legislation. I'm talking about the run of the mill mundane day to day stuff that you're desperately trying to not have to talk about. Like preaching to non-believers that it's wrong to love who you want to love, and preaching to non-believers that they should thank god for the gift of pregnancy through rape. I'm talking about what the churches believe, what they preach and what they encourage their followers to believe, and preach, and act upon.
OK then what discrimination are you talking about?
Someone believing that your lifestyle is wrong is not discrimination you NUT! it is simply their view, now if you said they refused to serve me in starbucks cause I am gay then you might have a case for discrimination!
I love how you took such an extreme scenario "non-believers that they should thank god for the gift of pregnancy through rape"
Really? You are talking a sensitive topic such as abortion and using the most extreme case to try and make a point... You seem to think that only Christians have the view that abortion is wrong, when that is not the case, a lot of non Christian civil rights activists will also argue life is life and that unborn chidren still have rights... But I see you want to focus in on very extreme scenarios!!!what they preach and what they encourage their followers to believe, and preach, and act upon.
And act upon it? You are so one sided it is unbelievable! You give this impression that some priest or minister or preacher is sitting in a pulpit telling his congregation to go out and commit hate crimes!
I think these arguments are right up with the crazy Christian beliefs ... In effect I think had you jumped on the Christian bandwaggon you would be right up their with that most hated family in America!You think the bible is inaccurate.
Please stop trying to speak for me, I said it was a questionable source its accuracy is difficult or perhaps impossible to verify.You think it shouldn't be taken literally. But you won't defend that opinion in the face of someone who disagrees. Because that would be imposing your will on them.
No I will argue my point.. But is it just a point of view, I will not actively go about trying to prevent them from believing what they want.Meanwhile you happily hide behind free speech to tell me you think my views small-minded?
Yes and do not forget biased.You are entitled to your opinions. You are entitled to your opinions of my opinions. What your opinions are not entitled to is my respect. And frankly, I don't want yours.
OK0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Asking someone have they ever studied history, could just mean... "Have you ever studied history???" I found their argument lacking in any real logic.
In terms of setting myself up as an authority, these are your words not mine....
Am I familiar with the subject matter... Yes I do read history books, I studied at a grammar school in Derry, my A levels did include History, Ancient History, Art and Math... Granted not a degree in history or a Phd but I would still consider myself familiar with the subject matter.
You seem to be picking at things I said then making these massive jumps in assumptions...
That argument would hold more weight if you didn't repeat the behaviour so often.
And yes I'm picking apart what you say. I'm deconstructing your argument to point out the errors of reasoning you are making. If their arguments lacked 'real' logic, you would be able to point out where the flaws are instead of just claiming it.Yes well done! I was being facetious...
Insulting your opponent is not something that should be done flippantly. I doubt you would think it funny if I started insulting you.I think your arguments lack in real logic, me stating that I like history, asking people have they ever looked at history making a wise crack about them not being a scientist.. is in no way suggesting I am an expert in the field more so that I think their argument lacks any real substance.
Such a mighty champion of logic as you should surely know already that such comments neither support your arguments nor demonstrate the flaws in those of others.Bannasidhe argument really had nothing to do with the original comments, she took exception to my use of the word "history" when referring to the bible but ultimately is somewhat in agreement to it validity as a source.
I make a joke about academics sitting on boards all day so I am pretty sure she simply wanted to put me in my place.
I mentioned history, I did not expect a rant on the history of the IRA..
If thats what you think happened it's safe to say you have completely missed the point of that argument.Yes, if I agree with the idea or if someone convinces me of their argument I will take it on board else I am going to question and challenge peoples point of view.
You don't have to challenge a person to challenge their point of view. And challenging a person doesn't challenge their point of view.OK then what discrimination are you talking about?
Someone believing that your lifestyle is wrong is not discrimination you NUT! it is simply their view, now if you said they refused to serve me in starbucks cause I am gay then you might have a case for discrimination!
I love how you took such an extreme scenario "non-believers that they should thank god for the gift of pregnancy through rape"
Really? You are talking a sensitive topic such as abortion and using the most extreme case to try and make a point... You seem to think that only Christians have the view that abortion is wrong, when that is not the case, a lot of non Christian civil rights activists will also argue life is life and that unborn chidren still have rights... But I see you want to focus in on very extreme scenarios!!!
Actually I went with the extreme example because it's been topical this year. I figured it might finally get a reaction from you seeing as you seem to think that more mundane forms don't happen. Looks like I was right.
I also never claimed "only Christians" anything. And I don't appreciate you pretending I did. That's another error of reasoning. It's called a straw man.
I claimed Christians believe and do these things. I'm not wrong because they're not the only ones at it, nor does that make it okay.And act upon it? You are so one sided it is unbelievable! You give this impression that some priest or minister or preacher is sitting in a pulpit telling his congregation to go out and commit hate crimes!
You want samples?
Lets not just blame the US though!
How about closer to home?
while you're at it look here!I think these arguments are right up with the crazy Christian beliefs ... In effect I think had you jumped on the Christian bandwaggon you would be right up their with that most hated family in America!
Are you trying to compare me to the westboro baptist church or the manson family? Both of those comparisons are ridiculous, as evidenced by my posts in the christianity forum (you can check that in my user profile), proving I don't go around airing my views where it is not appropriate, and my never having been convicted. Which may not prove I didn't do it, but I definitely never got caught.Please stop trying to speak for me, I said it was a questionable source its accuracy is difficult or perhaps impossible to verify.
That's hugely hypocritical coming from you. But fair enough, if you want me to use "questionable" rather than "inaccurate" I really can't be bothered arguing about shades of difference in meaning between near synonyms.No I will argue my point.. But is it just a point of view, I will not actively go about trying to prevent them from believing what they want.
Go to google. Type "define argument" in the box. Press enter. Pay particular attention to the second point.0 -
Seriously ShowMeTheCash, 'up' is a real direction. It's possible to dig that way.0
-
And yes I'm picking apart what you say. I'm deconstructing your argument to point out the errors of reasoning you are making. If their arguments lacked 'real' logic, you would be able to point out where the flaws are instead of just claiming it.
You are not pointing out errors in reasoning, you are taking statements I have said and coming to your own conclusions...
Lighten up its a forum...Insulting your opponent is not something that should be done flippantly. I doubt you would think it funny if I started insulting you.Such a mighty champion of logic as you should surely know already that such comments neither support your arguments nor demonstrate the flaws in those of others.
You seem to say a lot but without actually saying anything.If thats what you think happened it's safe to say you have completely missed the point of that argument.
I can argue the same point... Oh wait i did!You don't have to challenge a person to challenge their point of view. And challenging a person doesn't challenge their point of view.
You think I am challenging the person? How do you come to that conclusion as I really did not know anything about anyone on the forum apart from their point of view.. Well at least until they started to unload personal information about themselves.Actually I went with the extreme example because it's been topical this year. I figured it might finally get a reaction from you seeing as you seem to think that more mundane forms don't happen. Looks like I was right.
No it just make your example idiotic, bit like me saying King Jong the second is an atheist and is responsible for the death of 4 million people... As if that somehow strengthens the argument that atheists lack morals.I also never claimed "only Christians" anything. And I don't appreciate you pretending I did. That's another error of reasoning. It's called a straw man.
This statement I find the funniest, accepted you did not say only Christians... however you seem to want to jump to conclusions on everything I say....I claimed Christians believe and do these things. I'm not wrong because they're not the only ones at it, nor does that make it okay.
Again it is this kind of statement and really the crux of why I think you too are somewhat of a bigot.... Are you trying to tell me you can speak for every single Christian? You know what everything single one of them believe? Cause this is what you are suggesting with the above statement...
I think you seem to think that all Christians believe exactly the same thing, do you?
You want samples?
Lets not just blame the US though!
How about closer to home?
while you're at it look here!
What does this prove? That people are nuts? Mussolini was a fascist nut job and an atheist... Does not mean that all atheists are nut jobs or fascists....
People will discriminate if they choose too, you seem to suggest they discriminate because they are Christian, I disagree!0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I said it was a questionable source its accuracy is difficult or perhaps impossible to verify.
Except that in many cases, the accuracy (or lack thereof) of stories in the Bible is readily verifiable.
In some cases, we can look to external evidence to examine the accuracy of Bible stories.
One example of this is the fall of Jericho, told in the book Joshua. The story tells of Joshua leading the Israelite army to victory in Jericho in their conquest of Canaan. However, when we attempt to reconcile this with archaeological evidence we have a problem.
The radiocarbon dating performed on samples gathered at the site of Jericho shows that the fall of the city occurred no later than approximately 1550 BCE. In fact, more recent research by the two scholars who penned the original study suggests that the date should be pushed back even further. The biblical chronology declares a date of 1500 BCE for the birth of Joshua so by the time Joshua led the Israelite army Jericho was already nothing more than a ruin.
TELL ES-SULTAN (JERICHO): RADIOCARBON RESULTS OF SHORT-LIVED
CEREAL AND MULTIYEAR CHARCOAL SAMPLES FROM THE END OF
THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE
OK, let's have another example. At the beginning of Mark Chapter 5, we have the story of Jesus healing the demon-possessed man. We are told that having cast out the demons from the man that they then go into a group of pigs who proceed to run down the hill into the sea (the Sea of Galilee) and are drowned. The problem here occurs when we look at the geographical evidence. At the outset of the story we are told that Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee and goes to the land of the Gerasenes. However, if we look at a map of the area here:
Map of Ancient Israel
we can see that Gerasa is about 30 miles from the sea of Galilee at its closest point. That would be a pretty big hill. In fact, this error is highlighted in the Gospel of Matthew when Matthew makes one of his rare changes to the text he copies from Mark when he changes Gerasenes to Gadarenes, which reduces the problem from 30 miles to about 5.
Finally, as far as external evidence goes there is the story of Lazarus told in John Chapter 11.
The relevant features of the story are:- A man names Lazarus dies and is mourned by his two sisters Mary and Martha.
- He is buried in a tomb and remains there for four days before being resurrected.
- The sisters send word to Jesus that Lazarus has died.
- Jesus goes to the tomb and raises Lazarus by calling out in a loud voice "Come forth"
- Osiris dies and is mourned by his sisters Isis and Nephthys.
- He is buried in the necropolis known as the House of Anu and remains there for four days.
- The sisters send word to Horus that Osiris has died.
- Horus goes to the tomb and calls out in a loud voice "Come forth"
This textual comparison brings me on to another method by which we can verify the accuracy of the bible, internal evidence.
One such example is the raising of Jairus' daughter which features in all the synoptic gospels.
The story (as told in Mark) goes like this:
"When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat."
I have highlighted the parts which will become important in a minute. Now let's look at this passage from 2 Kings 4:25-35:
"So she set out and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel. When he saw her in the distance, the man of God said to his servant Gehazi, “Look! There’s the Shunammite! Run to meet her and ask her, ‘Are you all right? Is your husband all right? Is your child all right?’”
“Everything is all right,” she said. When she reached the man of God at the mountain, she took hold of his feet. Gehazi came over to push her away, but the man of God said, “Leave her alone! She is in bitter distress, but the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me why.” “Did I ask you for a son, my lord?” she said. “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t raise my hopes’?”
Elisha said to Gehazi, “Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand and run. Don’t greet anyone you meet, and if anyone greets you, do not answer. Lay my staff on the boy’s face.” But the child’s mother said, “As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you.” So he got up and followed her. Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy’s face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, “The boy has not awakened.” When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the Lord. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy’s body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes."
Both stories, Jesus and Elisha share curiously similar elements, the parent falling at the prophet's feet, continuing on even after a messenger has told them that the child is dead, demanding privacy before healing the child and taking the child by the hand. Furthermore there are linguistic devices which indicate that the author of Mark's gospel was deliberately borrowing from the story of Elisha. The father in the first story is Jairus whose name comes from the Hebrew yair meaning awaken. Later in the story Jesus commands the young girl to awaken or egeire in Greek. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament story Elisha is told that the boy had not yet awakened or egerthe (past tense of egeire). Mark seems to be using a linguistic tip of the hat to the story of Elisha in his narrative.
And this is all before we get to contradictions in the bible like the death of Judas:
"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
Matthew 27:5
"(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
Acts 1:18
or relatively minor examples like:
"And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Exodus 33:11
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
John 1:18
And even that is before we get to pointing out the really preposterous stuff like the sun stopping for a whole day in Joshua or the flood in Genesis or even something as insignificant as the claim that pregnant cattle who are shown striped patterns will bear striped offspring in Genesis 30.
You see, the thing that you seem to have failed to grasp is that the difficulty in verifying the accuracy of the bible is only a problem for one side of the argument. This idea of "well you can't prove it but you can't disprove it either" is ridiculous. That is not the way the world works. As was recently pointed out to me during jury service, "he who alleges must prove." The onus is on the party making the positive claim to support that claim with evidence. You don't have to disprove a claim, we don't seek to disprove that a new drug works. New drugs are assumed not to work. It is for their manufacturers to demonstrate that it works. Similarly, anyone who makes a positive claim takes on a burden of proof which they must meet in order to be taken seriously.
Therein lies the problem with people who argue that the Bible is a source of legitimate historical fact. Whereas the truth of stories like the flood or the marriage feast of cana are relatively unimportant for the mythology at large, there are some stories in the Bible which Christians need to be true and verifiable for the entire mythology to make any sense. Like the resurrection, for example. Even early Christian writers like Paul understood this, which is why he points out in 1 Corinthians:
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."
1 Corinthians 15:17
Since the only sources we have for the resurrection are anonymous and forged writings written decades after the events they describe and full of contradictions, mistakes and syncretic borrowings, the idea that even the core of Christian myth could be proven is laughable.0 -
I heart this ^post very muchly.0
-
That was a great read oldrnwisr, thanks for that. I'd like to read up a bit more on explanations for the miracles attributed to Jesus, especially the loaves and fishes and the wedding feast at Cana, could you recommend any books or sites?0
-
Except that in many cases, the accuracy (or lack thereof) of stories in the Bible is readily verifiable.
In some cases, we can look to external evidence to examine the accuracy of Bible stories.
One example of this is the fall of Jericho, told in the book Joshua. The story tells of Joshua leading the Israelite army to victory in Jericho in their conquest of Canaan. However, when we attempt to reconcile this with archaeological evidence we have a problem.
The radiocarbon dating performed on samples gathered at the site of Jericho shows that the fall of the city occurred no later than approximately 1550 BCE. In fact, more recent research by the two scholars who penned the original study suggests that the date should be pushed back even further. The biblical chronology declares a date of 1500 BCE for the birth of Joshua so by the time Joshua led the Israelite army Jericho was already nothing more than a ruin.
TELL ES-SULTAN (JERICHO): RADIOCARBON RESULTS OF SHORT-LIVED
CEREAL AND MULTIYEAR CHARCOAL SAMPLES FROM THE END OF
THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE
OK, let's have another example. At the beginning of Mark Chapter 5, we have the story of Jesus healing the demon-possessed man. We are told that having cast out the demons from the man that they then go into a group of pigs who proceed to run down the hill into the sea (the Sea of Galilee) and are drowned. The problem here occurs when we look at the geographical evidence. At the outset of the story we are told that Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee and goes to the land of the Gerasenes. However, if we look at a map of the area here:
Map of Ancient Israel
we can see that Gerasa is about 30 miles from the sea of Galilee at its closest point. That would be a pretty big hill. In fact, this error is highlighted in the Gospel of Matthew when Matthew makes one of his rare changes to the text he copies from Mark when he changes Gerasenes to Gadarenes, which reduces the problem from 30 miles to about 5.
Finally, as far as external evidence goes there is the story of Lazarus told in John Chapter 11.
The relevant features of the story are:- A man names Lazarus dies and is mourned by his two sisters Mary and Martha.
- He is buried in a tomb and remains there for four days before being resurrected.
- The sisters send word to Jesus that Lazarus has died.
- Jesus goes to the tomb and raises Lazarus by calling out in a loud voice "Come forth"
- Osiris dies and is mourned by his sisters Isis and Nephthys.
- He is buried in the necropolis known as the House of Anu and remains there for four days.
- The sisters send word to Horus that Osiris has died.
- Horus goes to the tomb and calls out in a loud voice "Come forth"
This textual comparison brings me on to another method by which we can verify the accuracy of the bible, internal evidence.
One such example is the raising of Jairus' daughter which features in all the synoptic gospels.
The story (as told in Mark) goes like this:
"When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat."
I have highlighted the parts which will become important in a minute. Now let's look at this passage from 2 Kings 4:25-35:
"So she set out and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel. When he saw her in the distance, the man of God said to his servant Gehazi, “Look! There’s the Shunammite! Run to meet her and ask her, ‘Are you all right? Is your husband all right? Is your child all right?’”
“Everything is all right,” she said. When she reached the man of God at the mountain, she took hold of his feet. Gehazi came over to push her away, but the man of God said, “Leave her alone! She is in bitter distress, but the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me why.” “Did I ask you for a son, my lord?” she said. “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t raise my hopes’?”
Elisha said to Gehazi, “Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand and run. Don’t greet anyone you meet, and if anyone greets you, do not answer. Lay my staff on the boy’s face.” But the child’s mother said, “As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you.” So he got up and followed her. Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy’s face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, “The boy has not awakened.” When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the Lord. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy’s body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes."
Both stories, Jesus and Elisha share curiously similar elements, the parent falling at the prophet's feet, continuing on even after a messenger has told them that the child is dead, demanding privacy before healing the child and taking the child by the hand. Furthermore there are linguistic devices which indicate that the author of Mark's gospel was deliberately borrowing from the story of Elisha. The father in the first story is Jairus whose name comes from the Hebrew yair meaning awaken. Later in the story Jesus commands the young girl to awaken or egeire in Greek. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament story Elisha is told that the boy had not yet awakened or egerthe (past tense of egeire). Mark seems to be using a linguistic tip of the hat to the story of Elisha in his narrative.
And this is all before we get to contradictions in the bible like the death of Judas:
"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
Matthew 27:5
"(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
Acts 1:18
or relatively minor examples like:
"And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Exodus 33:11
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
John 1:18
And even that is before we get to pointing out the really preposterous stuff like the sun stopping for a whole day in Joshua or the flood in Genesis or even something as insignificant as the claim that pregnant cattle who are shown striped patterns will bear striped offspring in Genesis 30.
You see, the thing that you seem to have failed to grasp is that the difficulty in verifying the accuracy of the bible is only a problem for one side of the argument. This idea of "well you can't prove it but you can't disprove it either" is ridiculous. That is not the way the world works. As was recently pointed out to me during jury service, "he who alleges must prove." The onus is on the party making the positive claim to support that claim with evidence. You don't have to disprove a claim, we don't seek to disprove that a new drug works. New drugs are assumed not to work. It is for their manufacturers to demonstrate that it works. Similarly, anyone who makes a positive claim takes on a burden of proof which they must meet in order to be taken seriously.
Therein lies the problem with people who argue that the Bible is a source of legitimate historical fact. Whereas the truth of stories like the flood or the marriage feast of cana are relatively unimportant for the mythology at large, there are some stories in the Bible which Christians need to be true and verifiable for the entire mythology to make any sense. Like the resurrection, for example. Even early Christian writers like Paul understood this, which is why he points out in 1 Corinthians:
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."
1 Corinthians 15:17
Since the only sources we have for the resurrection are anonymous and forged writings written decades after the events they describe and full of contradictions, mistakes and syncretic borrowings, the idea that even the core of Christian myth could be proven is laughable.
Interesting, however I already knew this.. I know the story of Jesus, the virgin birth even down to the three kings is not unique it is cropped up before a number of times.
I know the idea of Christmas was piggy backed on a pagan festival celebrating the Sun being the 25th of December marked the day where people could actually calculate the days where beginning to get longer, there are similarities between the Sun and Son of god, we are currently in the age of Pisces From 498 AD to the year 2,654 the sign of the fish that a lot of Christians adopt and that even that Crux or southern cross has some relevance with the story of Jesus... 3 bright stars, 3 wise men, the crux representing the Crucifixion etc.. etc..
However I have also stated I do not take the bible literally, trying to distinguish a parable i.e. Just a story to perhaps something that actually happened I think would be difficult I also stated at very least the bible shows an in depth look at the laws and beliefs of an ancient culture.0 -
Just on the Christian myth being laughable.
it could be argued that all religious ideas are laughable, they fall firmly in the realm of "supernatural" the belief in something they cannot see.
There is reasonable evidence to suggest a "Jesus" did exist and even around the Crucifixion, the information around the rest agreed is somewhat vague at best
Christians latch on the the principles and teachings of Jesus Christ... They believe he died and was risen from the dead for our sins.
This is their choice...0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Just on the Christian myth being laughable.
it could be argued that all religious ideas are laughable, ...
Yes, pretty much... the magical parts certainly.0 -
There's actually no evidence that I know of that a Jesus existed as it's not a name that would be recognised in the middle east. If you mean that there's reasonable evidence that the guy we call 'Jesus' existed could you stick up a link to it? I'd love to have a read. The closest I've been able to get is that some guy called Chrestus was crucified at around that time.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »There is reasonable evidence to suggest a "Jesus" did exist and even around the Crucifixion, the information around the rest agreed is somewhat vague at best0 -
Advertisement
-
There's actually no evidence that I know of that a Jesus existed as it's not a name that would be recognised in the middle east. If you mean that there's reasonable evidence that the guy we call 'Jesus' existed could you stick up a link to it? I'd love to have a read. The closest I've been able to get is that some guy called Chrestus was crucified at around that time.
That part of the world was a hotbed of messianic types and preachers at the time, wasn't it? Or am I thinking "Life of Brian"?0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You are not pointing out errors in reasoning, you are taking statements I have said and coming to your own conclusions...
It's called reading comprehension. I read the words you use, I understand what they mean, and I place them within the context of your post.You seem to say a lot but without actually saying anything.
What can I say, it's a gift.You think I am challenging the person? How do you come to that conclusion as I really did not know anything about anyone on the forum apart from their point of view.. Well at least until they started to unload personal information about themselves.
Uhm yes, you're challenging them directly on their interest and knowledge of the topic.
Also if one goes around asking if people are interested in something and telling people one likes something, one really has no cause for being surprised when people who share ones interests show up to talk about said something, does one?No it just make your example idiotic, bit like me saying King Jong the second is an atheist and is responsible for the death of 4 million people... As if that somehow strengthens the argument that atheists lack morals.
If he killed them because he was an atheist, if that was his motivation, the 'cause' for this genocide, it might. If he killed them for other reasons and was incidentally atheist, it would not. That's the difference between causation and correlation. You probably shouldn't forget that when constructing a hypothetical.This statement I find the funniest, accepted you did not say only Christians... however you seem to want to jump to conclusions on everything I say....
Well one of us has to base their arguments on what the other one actually says, this time it just happened to be me.Again it is this kind of statement and really the crux of why I think you too are somewhat of a bigot.... Are you trying to tell me you can speak for every single Christian? You know what everything single one of them believe? Cause this is what you are suggesting with the above statement...
I think you seem to think that all Christians believe exactly the same thing, do you?
Oh no, some of them believe mary was born without sin, and others don't. Some of them believe in ritual cannabilism, some of them don't.
There are a huge variety of different beliefs out their. There's probably even a small few that disagree with institutionalising homophobia and sexism, but that doesn't make institutionalised, biblically sourced, homophobia and sexism any less a Christian belief now does it? Given this particular Christian belief seems to be conserved across all the "major" schisms of Christianity it might even be argued to be one of their 'core' beliefs. They rather literally have more consensus on this than on the question of whether or not they eat their god.
But hey, you keep up your search for absolute statements I'm not making okay? Maybe then your little straw men will cease to be less than meaningless jabber, but while you're at, do me a favour.
Build me an army worthy of Mordor.You want samples?
Lets not just blame the US though!
How about closer to home?
while you're at it look here!
What does this prove? That people are nuts? Mussolini was a fascist nut job and an atheist... Does not mean that all atheists are nut jobs or fascists....
Well the first three links are indicative of multiple instances of
(1),as well as them leading by example(2) and acting similarly towards their own(3).some priest or minister or preacher is sitting in a pulpit telling his congregation to go out and commit hate crimes!
Which you'd know if you'd checked them, which I know you didn't because the fourth one is a troll link. A litmus test to see if you're following the argument or not.
It appears you are not.People will discriminate if they choose too, you seem to suggest they discriminate because they are Christian, I disagree!
Yes I am definitely suggesting that one of the reasons people discriminate is because they are Christian and their religion tells them they should. Actually I'll go one further and just state it.
One of the reasons people discriminate is because they are Christian and their religion tells them they should.0 -
That was a great read oldrnwisr, thanks for that. I'd like to read up a bit more on explanations for the miracles attributed to Jesus, especially the loaves and fishes and the wedding feast at Cana, could you recommend any books or sites?
Thank you for your comments IT-Guy, appreciate it.
As far as further reading goes I would always recommend the Bible (particularly the NASV, which is generally regarded as the most accurate translation) as a first stop. There's nothing better for impeaching the bible than the bible itself. Now as for books and websites these are some of the resources I've found helpful (these are general as well as specific works):
Books
Jesus, Interrupted
Misquoting Jesus
The Origin of Satan
Pagan Christianity
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins
The Jesus of the Early Christians
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
Apologetics (Because it helps to know what the other side is claiming)
The Case for Christ
Evidence That Demands A Verdict
Websites
Early Christian Writings
Secular Web
Godless Haven
Iron Chariots
New Testament History & Literature (Yale Course)
Introduction to the Old Testament
Strong's Concordance
Online Interlinear Bible
Codex Sinaiticus Online
Codex Vaticanus Online
Septuagint Online
Hope this helps.
Thank you also to Lazygal, your comments are much appreciated.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »However I have also stated I do not take the bible literally, trying to distinguish a parable i.e. Just a story to perhaps something that actually happened I think would be difficult I also stated at very least the bible shows an in depth look at the laws and beliefs of an ancient culture.
As far as the parable idea goes, this is something I have argued against previously on Boards. While syncretism and parable doesn't take from the overall message conveyed by the authors of the bible, it does have a significant detrimental claim on the idea that these events actually happened as described. Take the loaves and fishes that IT-Guy mentioned, for example. Jesus feeds the multitudinous crowd with just 5 loaves and 2 fish. It sounds reasonable on the surface. However, when you read 2 Kings 4, you see the same story told generations earlier with Elisha feeding 100 men with 20 loaves. It becomes clear when the stories are laid side-by-side that the Jesus loaves story is a fabrication by the author to show how Jesus is much more powerful than Elisha. The same idea recurs in Luke 11 when Jesus makes reference to "something greater than Solomon is here" alluding to the story in 2 Chronicles.
Anyway, I think we're mostly on the same page as far as the Bible goes apart from having different ways of putting things. For example, where you say above at very least, I disagree. I think that an insight into the cultural mindset of a certain group of people is about all the Bible has to offer.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Just on the Christian myth being laughable.
it could be argued that all religious ideas are laughable, they fall firmly in the realm of "supernatural" the belief in something they cannot see.
There is reasonable evidence to suggest a "Jesus" did exist and even around the Crucifixion, the information around the rest agreed is somewhat vague at best
Christians latch on the the principles and teachings of Jesus Christ... They believe he died and was risen from the dead for our sins.
This is their choice...
OK, a couple of points here.
Firstly, there isn't reasonable evidence to suggest Jesus existed. There is scant evidence. The only thing which saves the Jesus idea is that the notion that someone named Jesus existed and died in Palestine 2000 years ago is a pretty unremarkable one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but similarly ordinary ones only require ordinary evidence, so on balance the idea that someone named Jesus existed doesn't cause too many problems for either side if acknowledged.
Secondly, regarding the Crucifixion, there is a degree of contrary evidence surrounding the traditional account of the Crucifixion. It mostly harks back to what I said previously about the reliability of the gospel accounts in general, but I have previously detailed the problems with the crucifixion account here.
Finally, regarding the choice to believe in Jesus or not that's fine. Anyone who wants to believe in any kind of crazy sh1t doesn't bother me. However, anyone who wants to tell me that it's all true better have some damn good evidence to back it up. Also, while it's fine to have a belief in God, telling someone what they can or cannot do with their private lives, that they cannot get married, that they cannot decide what to do with their own bodies, that's not remotely acceptable and must be challenged.There's actually no evidence that I know of that a Jesus existed as it's not a name that would be recognised in the middle east. If you mean that there's reasonable evidence that the guy we call 'Jesus' existed could you stick up a link to it? I'd love to have a read. The closest I've been able to get is that some guy called Chrestus was crucified at around that time.
As I pointed out above, the evidence is scant but then the claim is unremarkable. Anyway, this may be a useful starting point for you:
The Extrabiblical Sources on Jesus
That's not to say that there isn't considerable debate on the issue and some strong works on the myth side, but IMO, the whole NT becomes much more problematic to analyse if you take the Jesus myth side. It makes more sense if you read it as a mythic persona built around a real character.0 -
I thank every post by oldrnwisr before I read them. Why? I have faith.
0 -
Yes I am definitely suggesting that one of the reasons people discriminate is because they are Christian and their religion tells them they should. Actually I'll go one further and just state it.
One of the reasons people discriminate is because they are Christian and their religion tells them they should.
The rest of the post was guff, the only interesting part I find it is this.
I sometimes try to understand peoples views or why they make an argument.
The above statement is what you believe so be it, I think it somewhat if a bigoted point of view but then again that is just my view.
Christians are followers of Christ, take a look in the bible and let me know what teachings in the NT accredited to Jesus you find discriminatory...0 -
-
HansHolzel wrote: »Jesus is just the Greek form of the name Joshua or Yeshua.
Yes, that's my point. He wouldn't be listed as 'Jesus' in any documents from the era, because his name was Joshua.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The rest of the post was guff,
I disagree. Much of my post was deeply and directly unflattering to you, but it was you who told me to.Lighten up
Despite me having previously told youI doubt you would think it funny if I started insulting you.
Much of the rest of it was correct.the only interesting part I find it is this.
I sometimes try to understand peoples views or why they make an argument.
This is a bold faced lie. If you wished me to explain my views further that is what you would ask.
Instead you give me this:Christians are followers of Christ, take a look in the bible and let me know what teachings in the NT accredited to Jesus you find discriminatory...
A scenario in which you
a) define Christians in a way favourable to you, and one you are surely aware I will contest.
b) Limit me to pieces of Christian scripture you think "safe"
c) Limit me to discussion of a single character you think "extra safe".
In this way you present to me a challenge which is deeply biased and flawed under the guise of "explaining my views".
Luckily, the character you think "extra safe" gives me a back door.
Within the body of the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly and explicitly reminds his followers that he wants them to continue to follow the law as laid down in the old testament, and that he is not changing it.
So which bits do I find discriminatory? The bits where he encourages the use of discriminatory texts as laws.
I'll only give one direct example for now seeing as you seem unable to handle more than one at once.
http://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Mt5.13:Matthew 5:17-20
Now the interesting thing to me about this challenge is that it quite possibly makes you the most biased person in the thread and puts a rather serious dent in your repeated early claims to be "Not a christian." Why would someone who is not a christian be favourably biased toward christianity? It makes no apparent logical sense; a 'devils advocate' after all would not be biased towards the position they are holding as they are holding it only for the sake of debate.
Care to explain your point of view?The above statement is what you believe so be it, I think it somewhat if a bigoted point of view but then again that is just my view.
Your view holds no weight without some sort of explanation as to why you hold it. Why do you still need to be told that? Without such it is merely an opinion, and stating it without an argument is either because you can't back it up, in which case I would view it as worthless posturing, or because you are aware that you can't, making me think it it even more worthless cowardice.0 -
Advertisement
-
I disagree. Much of my post was deeply and directly unflattering to you, but it was you who told me to.
Despite me having previously told you
Much of the rest of it was correct.
No it was just nonsence! As I said before I do not care that you seem to think you are insulting me, but at least have a point!This is a bold faced lie. If you wished me to explain my views further that is what you would ask.
Are you on any medication?
I am not looking for you to explain your views, if you have a bigoted point of view I am sure you would give reasons that sounded most plausible... Most bigots do.
Earlier in the thread someone has stated their views and went on to state that they are homosexual.... I still do not agree with their view point but I can at least understand why they have it and where they are coming from.Instead you give me this:
A scenario in which you
a) define Christians in a way favourable to you, and one you are surely aware I will contest.
I am seriously beginning to think you are mentally unhinged... You use the word Christian as if they are all mindless drones... They are people... I am not sure if you are emphasizing a point or you actually seem to harbour some bitter hatred?b) Limit me to pieces of Christian scripture you think "safe"
c) Limit me to discussion of a single character you think "extra safe".
In this way you present to me a challenge which is deeply biased and flawed under the guise of "explaining my views".
I have not made a statement towards an entire subset of people, you have said "Yes I am definitely suggesting that one of the reasons people discriminate is because they are Christian and their religion tells them they should"
If you have a bigoted view point I would at least like to understand why you have it...Luckily, the character you think "extra safe" gives me a back door.
Within the body of the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly and explicitly reminds his followers that he wants them to continue to follow the law as laid down in the old testament, and that he is not changing it.
So which bits do I find discriminatory? The bits where he encourages the use of discriminatory texts as laws.
I'll only give one direct example for now seeing as you seem unable to handle more than one at once.
http://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Mt5.13:Matthew 5:17-20
So Jesus making reference to the "laws" old testement without making reference to any specific part is your argument? OK
Some Christians might argue with you on it being discriminatory with various text on equality from the bible http://www.openbible.info/topics/equality
We also stated earlier in the thread that the bible was written and rewritten in terms of original text we established it is questionable...
But you assume to think
Now the interesting thing to me about this challenge is that it quite possibly makes you the most biased person in the thread and puts a rather serious dent in your repeated early claims to be "Not a christian." Why would someone who is not a christian be favourably biased toward christianity? It makes no apparent logical sense; a 'devils advocate' after all would not be biased towards the position they are holding as they are holding it only for the sake of debate.
Care to explain your point of view?
I really think you are a complete idiot, your bigoted point of view is so entrenched that if you where anyone of importance I would nearly think you dangerous.
I am not taking a christian point of view, I simply do not wish to paint an entire people with the same paint brush as you seem to want to do.
You want to believe Christianity is the cause of and reason for why people are racists and bigots...
You are trying to convey the idea that the text of the bible reinforces this belief when in reality you are picking at small amouts of text amoung a vast litnany of passages around equality and selfless acts...Your view holds no weight without some sort of explanation as to why you hold it. Why do you still need to be told that? Without such it is merely an opinion, and stating it without an argument is either because you can't back it up, in which case I would view it as worthless posturing, or because you are aware that you can't, making me think it it even more worthless cowardice.
Did this make you feel better?
Just out a matter of interested as my "view" is worthless and cowardice. What is my view?
Other than me thinking you a bigot (and now an idiot)... If that is what you are making reference too, me calling you a bigot then the reason I hold this point of view I think I have now explained.0
Advertisement