Nuerotik,
please ignore the responses containing inuslts directed at you. I posted those before I read your retraction.
now, since, I hope, we’ve moved beyond the initial problems, I’ve admitted my fault, I hope we can have a debate, a discussion at the very least.
Lolo
I simply cannot accept the teachings of such an outdated book with so many parrallels to greek mythology, and the OT and NT are in many ways just that, mythology.
Honestly, a question for the Christians. Does the mythological aspect of the bible not undermine the bible’s validity as a credible source of info?
What is cleraly untrue, suggests much about what is considered true, does it not?
Lolo:
With reference to your last questions, most scholarly Christians are perfectly well aware of the mythological dimension of much of Scripture that you refer to. Sometimes myth is the effective way to say something; we feel that it is appropriate in suggesting how God created the world to have reference to Genesis 1, not as an accurate repertorial account, but as a means to asserting in memorable language (admit it, you know the words to Genesis 1:1, and probably a lot more of the chapter) what could otherwise be expressed in a rather dry account of metaphysics. (I’d much rather watch Star Wars than read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, though they make similar points in their disparate styles.)
I suspect your final question, to which I’d give a “yes” answer, is intended to assert something on the order of “If any part of it is not literally true, the whole thing must be BS.” I assume you see the logical fallacy in that.
Tracer and Lib:
I admire the scholarship that went into your researches into [symbol]miseo[/symbol], but I think the argument can be reduced to this:
A common Semitic idiomatic usage is to assert the absolute to imply the relative. Instead of saying “vibrant enthusiasm” and “ennui,” for example, they will (metaphorically) use “living” and “dead.” “Hate” in the contexts Betty Bowers and Lib. cite is used in the sense of “reject as less than that commanding absolute commitment” rather than “hold in odium” as a literalistic reading would imply.
Poly,
I just don’t see the point in finding ways to not dismiss the bible when it’s so very easy to dismiss. The bible was literally true for so many years, then along comes more reliable answers to life’s questions and the bible becomes proportionally less literal and more allegorical, metaphorical.
It seems to me a process with a forseable end. And that end is not taking anything in the bible as useful, save the generic. “love one another and don’t commit crimes”
I suppose my porblem with it is the attachment. Just let it go, seems to be my mantra.
I find this very ironic 
good point
alomost too good
Please note that I did not write the “cue ball” post. Your attribution of it to me is erroneous.
yes you did
it’s about a quarter of the way down on the third page;this page.
No, I didn’t. Read the post that’s two posts after it.
how can something like that happen?
and it’s not like I was completely off attributing it to you. I hit quote, the magic happens.
oh well
Yes, it is. I didn’t write it. You attributed it to me. You were off completely.
Lolo, an aside… a friendly word. Honest. You know how you hate it when Christians get in your face and scream at you, and make fools of themselves with irrational ramblings, and so forth? Physician, heal thyself, hmmm?
It had your name on it. Moreover, who fucking cares? I can’t believe we’re still discussing this.
**
So, what you’re saying is, I shouldn’t do what they do b/c it makes me no better than they?
How much fun would that be?
and who you callin’ irrational?
Lolo is not first rate, it would seem, at admitting error.
This is shocking.
You’re embarrassing the real atheists here by your behavior. They are the ones who most vehemently argue against you. It’s as though they’re saying, “Get off my side… Please!” Why not simply make the decision (it is your decision, you know) to be civil? You might earn respect that way.
Egad. You don’t suppose the devil made him do it? 
so, i’m a fake atheist?
I’m sorry, but some of the reponse I’ve been garnering has been some bullshit.
I’m outta here for today. see you champs in the morrow. I’m sure you’ll all be looking forward to it.
The young fellow is delightfully sanguine, at least. Until the morrow, my friend!
Libertarian wrote:
Much as I hate to do this … I have to take Lolo’s side on this one.
Yes, Edlyn did post a message stating that she had accidentally posted an earlier message under Libertarian’s SDBM account. It was an honest mistake, but it wasn’t a common mistake, and it wasn’t the kind of thing the average SDMB poster would be on the lookout for. So, naturally, Lolo also made an honest mistake when he quoted that earlier message and attributed it to Libertarian, even though it had actually been posted by Edlyn, because Libertarian’s name was on it.
Libertarian, if you had responded to Lolo’s post by saying, “I didn’t write that, please read Edlyn’s message two posts down from it,” then I would be in complete agreement with your position. But that’s not what you did. You responded by saying, “I didn’t write that, Your attribution of it to me is erroneous.” Only when Lolo retorted, “Yes you did write that, your name’s on it and everything” did you bring up Edlyn’s clarification post.
Intentionally or not, your not mentioning Edlyn’s clarification post when this mis-attribution first came up, and instead simply saying “You’re wrong,” had the effect of trapping Lolo into a much worse faux-pas than simply assuming a post with your name on it was actually written by you. If you had done that to me, I too would have gotten defensive and said that I wasn’t “completely off attributing it to you.”
Actually, that is not true. You might want to read a little about the function of mythology in history. Reading the Bible, or the Qu’ran or Torah, as literal truth is a modern error made by fundamentalists of all these religions.
An excellent book on the topic is Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God
Ok, Lolo, I admit that I’ve now suggested several books for you in various threads. The reason I’m suggesting books, rather that attempting to debate here is that I think you could get far more benefit by the more indepth analysis possible with a book that with the limited space and time we have here.
I understand your anger toward religion. I’ve been there myself. But the issue is far more complex, and more interesting, than what you seem to admit here. If you want to ignore religion, that’s fine. But if you want to debate about it, you’d do well to study some more.
Is this thread still going? Lib, why are you wasting your time with this numbnuts?