250+ posts and 3000 views in less than a day. Holy pickles.
It’s funny, I was just thinking that about people who bend over backwards to interpret the bible depicting an all-loving god. If you have to metaphor away all the bad stuff, why use the Bible at all? I’m sure there’s a few books out there that describe god precisely this way, why not read/pray from those books?
It seems to me that, from one of Redfury’s quotes, badchad intends to always remind liberal Christians that they are acting irrationally. Until we invent an atheist chat-bot, badchad’s got a job to do.
And his style is so conducive to persuasion, too!
So it is his duty to protect them from themselves? To… save them, perhaps?
Gosh, that’s a completely new idea. Haranguing people to keep them from falling prey to some sort of failing. We should invent a word to describe it. I’m sure there isn’t one.
But I don’t see that as an inherent contradiction, if I’m catching your drift. So jsgoddess, are you suggesting that being obsessive on a topic is the same as religious belief? i.e Reeder was high priest of the Bush-hating church.
These posts from Guin and Jodi explain very well why it is ridiculous to argue the Bible (either pro- or anti-) from a literalist POV.
I especially love Guin’s point that fundamentalism is a new development in Christianity. For almost 2000 years, no scholars examined the Bible in such a vacuum. The fact that certain Fundamentalist sects do it now doesn’t in any way mean that this is the appropriate way to understand what Christianity is all about.
This actually builds on concept of the Jewish study of scripture. Some Orthodox Jews spend a lifetime learning Torah…basing the learning on the Talmud, which is in some ways analagous to the Catholic Church’s Catechism…commentary by philosophers & theologians (that evolved over thousands of years) on the text & what it means.
It is simply a false view of Christianity to merely read the text at face value and assume that you now know everything you need to about Christianity. I don’t know much about other religions such as Islam, but it certainly seems to me that there are multiple interpretations of the Koran as well. It would be nice if it was easy to define and everyone agreed, but it simply doesn’t work that way. These kinds of texts are complex. They contradict themselves. They use parables and symbolism to make points. They draw on earlier texts and cultural practices. It can take a lifetime of studying not only the text itself, but the context of the times it was written in to even begin to understand it. Some of us choose to rely on others who are more learned (like St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance), to help us guide us through it. Others try to wrangle it out for themselves. But either way, it takes a lot of effort, and reducing it down to literalness doesn’t do it justice…even as simply a piece of literature.
An excellent post, but you make a strong case that all discussion of Christianity belong in IMHO. So belief boils down to opinion far more than anything fact based. I am trying not to be critical and probably failing, but that is my best interpretation of your words.
Jim
Not exactly. I’m saying that a missionary is a missionary. And all missionaries are annoying as hell.
That said, though, I guess he does belong in GD, since that’s the forum for witnessing.
Being proselytized is one of the most fundamentally (urk) irritating and insulting things in the world. Atheists should grasp that above all people.
Beats workin’ for a living.
Thanks for the complement! It’s not that I object to using Bible quotes as fact-based evidence of what Christians believe. The problem is when people don’t accept the fact that one can be a Christian without taking the Bible literally…it doesn’t get us anywhere but in a big circle. badchad’s argument is basically, “I don’t agree with what the Bible says here, here, and here, and so Christianity is a load of crap” someone else will say “I don’t agree with those specific verses either, but I still think Christianity is valid.” Then badchad says that it is wrong to think Christianity is valid, because you have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian. But…no you don’t. So what is his point? That he is the one who is going to decide who is a Christian and who isn’t, from his non-believing perspective? Seems a little crazy to me.
The thing about the opinion is that it is NOT just opinion. If someone knows anything about Christianity, at some point they have learned the theology & its’ basis. They might not be expert enough to spit it back…it’s very complicated…but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t learn enough about it at one point or another to form an opinion that is based on what the text says, in addition to a little bit about the historical contexts, and how the scholars interpreted the various parables & symbolism and why these interpretations have been formed the way they have been.
This is the problem with arguing with fundamentalists. They like neat, pat answers. They want to put their finger in the Bible, and have it tell them exactly what they are supposed to think. As mentioned earlier, some of these types have lists of verses specifically designed to argue with Catholics. It’s not that a Catholic who knows his stuff couldn’t refute it, but it is a much longer and more complex answer than most people would want to listen to, or have the background to understand.
Personally, I don’t see the problem with discussing any of this in GD, because nothing there ever gets resolved, anyway. But it is simply wrong to say that the only “facts” that can get argued regarding Christianity are the literal words that are in the text. One person might say that it is a fact that Genesis is true exactly as written. Another might say it is a fact that it is meant as a kind of fable, which tells that God created the universe, but not necessarily in 7 days, or by fashioning animals from mud. Another person might say it is a fact that the whole thing is nothing but a made-up story, written to explain that which at the time could not be explained through science. Which of these “facts” is the Truth? Literalists would say, the first example. Athiests would say the last. The vast majority of Christians would fall somewhere in the middle one. The thing is, there is nothing IN THE TEXT which would indicate any of these three more than another. Nowhere in the Bible has it ever said, “Every word in this book is the literal truth. It may not be examined in any other light.” Scholars have known for 2000 years that it all has to be taken in historical context and with an eye for themes & messages. It has been over maybe the past 100 years or so that people have decided it is better to just read it as it is written. Which approach is going to lead to a richer and deeper understanding of the religion?
Not nearly as much as you do. Your text, as you plainly admit, is inconsistent, self-contradictory, and contrary to known fact in many places. Rather than decide “Hmmm, we seem to be working with a fucked up text here, and maybe I should start doubting some of my other assumptions” as most reasoning beings would consider doing at that point, you choose to cherrypick the parts you like and reject those uncomfortable other parts. That you claim this choice is the result of deep serious devoutly religious brainstorming and not the result of a massive brainfart is just excusing a blatant deviation from rational thought in a rahter childish manner. If I choose to characterize it as such, well, you can certainly disagree with me, but I don’t see where you get off privileging your irrational thought process and devaluing my process.
What’s your basis for rejecting certain passages in your holy work? “They’re inconvenient for my belief system” doesn’t impress me very much.
What’s all the hubbub with Badchad about? He’s a fundie, and like any fundie, he should be ignored. Just like a religious fundie his position is unassailable. if you take the Bible at face value you’re an idiot. if you only take the parts of the Bible that make sense to you, you lack conviction and belief, and are still an idiot. A religious fundie is really no different. Either you believe exactly what the Bible says, or you’re a heathen and going to hell. No middle ground.
You cannot debate anyone who believes in black and white, so dont try, and don’t get worked up over it. I have a feeling all this attention just makes him try harder, not listen better.
Badchad met Fundie, Fundie met Badchad.
I don’t understand why you make the assumption that it wasn’t done by “deep serious devoutly religious brainstorming”.
Wow, this is turning out better than I hoped. What do you think Skald, can we break the record? Anyway I can’t respond to everyone but I’ll do my best to hit some highlights.
Well he criticizes like a girl. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
That’s exactly right. I noticed overly polite but piercing criticisms generally get both ignored and forgotten, while if I put my time in I can goad a person into saying what they really think. I will also admit that I see no reason to feign respect for a belief system that deserves none.
Sincere thanks AHunter3.
I bet it irks the hell out of each and every one of you Pseudo-Christians. While I admit it’s stupid, I didn’t write it, and it’s sort of the point. So I think I’ll keep it.
As for my calling Jesus a cunt, I was responding to a person who in the same thread called other historical bad people cunts but then gave a Gandhi quote portraying Jesus as different. I didn’t pull it from out of the blue but I won’t shy away from it either. As defined on dictionary.com Jesus was a class-A cunt.
How about Jesus/god predestinating people to hell just as the bible says? You wouldn’t call that loving would you?
Personally I am very happy with Polycarp now. I haven’t seen him post religious BS in some time and I think that’s a very good thing.
I attack liberals Christians in part because nobody else is stepping up to the plate. When some fundy posts supporting creationism, it’s pretty much a gang bang to tell him he’s wrong. If you think you can do my argument better justice jsgoddess be my guest.
For what it’s worth I don’t claim any originality to my arguments. Some I think are fairly original but it’s probable that others have used them before me, while a good number of arguments are as old or older than Christianity itself. Still I don’t take my ammo from atheist blogs, and this is currently the only message board of a religious nature that I visit. And yes I have read the bible from cover to cover.
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42
I’m not familiar enough with the Koran to give an informed opinion. Based on hearsay alone, I would say he’s a genocidal maniac.
I’ve always said it was mostly about the argument, rather than Polycarp. Also I am opposed to the use of “nuanced” with regards to liberal Christianity. “Wishy-washy” or “self-serving” would be better descriptors IMO.
If you say your marriage is love, and then it turns out you murdered your husband, then yes I would say that statement was incorrect for you. I think my modification of your analogy makes it fit the subject matter better.
Try me.
This is largely true, which is why I asked Polycarp many personal questions about why he believes what he does and why I think I was very able to counter them. Sure it took more time than dealing with a fundamentalist but I think I have my formula down pat now. Exposing your beliefs as both selfish and irrational should not take as much time, but then again, you’ll pretend to be above such a discussion won’t you.
Perhaps Guin you would like to volunteer to show me where my arguments falter.
But this doesn’t stop you liberal Christians from taking the bible quite literally whenever it agrees with your prejudices now, does it?
You’re misquoting Socrates, and I think he was pandering for complements anyway.
Jody I rarely whack literalists. Almost everyone knows I specialize in whacking you liberals. If you think I’ve got nothing then bring it on. Just don’t start pretending to be offended just because you’re losing.
Or Sarahfeena, perhaps you are the person with enough intestinal fortitude for a little chat to show me why my argument is ridiculous.
Out of pure intellectual curiosity, how does that equate to “genocide”? The whoop-ass alluded to in the quote from Matthew refers to the purging of offenders for specific acts that they have done - not the extermination of an ethnic or religious group for merely existing.
And thanks Badchad for that long righteous fundie ladden post right after mine, you proved my point nicely.
You point stinks.
Specific acts for which Jesus will allegedly pull out his can of whoop-ass include not loving or believing in him. This amounts to the extermination of all religious groups that are not Christian.
First, I’m not a Christian, “pseudo” or otherwise.
Second, if you’re only posting it to irritate others, that’s trolling and against the rules.
And finally, my point wasn’t the sig itself, (although it’s obvious what you’re trying to do and it only makes you look like even MORE of an ass), but that you post it EVERY TIME YOU POST. The general rule is, use your sig ONCE per thread. You don’t have to use it in every reply.
Wow. With a debate style like that, no wonder you get people so worked up!
That was an insult Dob, and if I’m not mistaken you just finished saying you could not and should not even try debate me. Were in the Pit so you can suck my ass.