I love how accusatory the resident proclaimed 'open-minded' poster is.

Mischaracterization of the bible? Really? I think the only ones mischaracterizing the bible are those who purport it as the truth. You can spin it all you want. But the facts are the facts. According to the Bible, God drowned 99% of the world's population (including the animals). He killed 70,000 people because a census was taken improperly. His people stoned people for working on Sunday's. And he selected a very small group of people to be his representatives, and expected everyone else to follow them.

Are these things not in the bible? What's being mischaracterized? The fact that if your god exists, then he's an asshole? Because he absolutely is. Funny enough he's about as much of an asshole as the people of the time that wrote it, sharing their views on everything. What sort of God would shape his views to fit the people he chose? One would think that God would choose a group that share his views. You know, things like slavery being bad, rape being intolerable, and the value of a woman not being judged by if she's had sex or not.

You try to sound deep, but the only thing that's deep is the amount of bullshit you spew.

(January 9, 2016 at 8:11 am)Jehanne Wrote: (assuming, of course, he was ever a true atheist to begin with, having been raised, by his own admission, by liberal Christian parents)

The no true atheist fallacy is strong with this one

(January 16, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I love how accusatory the resident proclaimed 'open-minded' poster is.

Mischaracterization of the bible?  Really?  I think the only ones mischaracterizing the bible are those who purport it as the truth.  You can spin it all you want.  But the facts are the facts.  According to the Bible, God drowned 99% of the world's population (including the animals).  He killed 70,000 people because a census was taken improperly.  His people stoned people for working on Sunday's.  And he selected a very small group of people to be his representatives, and expected everyone else to follow them.  

Are these things not in the bible?  What's being mischaracterized?  The fact that if your god exists, then he's an asshole?  Because he absolutely is.  Funny enough he's about as much of an asshole as the people of the time that wrote it, sharing their views on everything.  What sort of God would shape his views to fit the people he chose?  One would think that God would choose a group that share his views.  You know, things like slavery being bad, rape being intolerable, and the value of a woman not being judged by if she's had sex or not.

You try to sound deep, but the only thing that's deep is the amount of bullshit you spew.

Is it possible to be open-minded about learning new things while simultaneously confident of the things one has already learned?

Being "open-minded" does not mean that you don't have firmly-held positions, does it?

(January 16, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 8:11 am)Jehanne Wrote: (assuming, of course, he was ever a true atheist to begin with, having been raised, by his own admission, by liberal Christian parents)

The no true atheist fallacy is strong with this one

His story doesn't add up, though.  He admits that his parents sent him to church but only "for the music."  This is silliness on parade, and yet, Francis would have us believe that he only absorbed music and no theology.  He claims that he was just "walking through the woods" and "just came upon a waterfall".  He was unaware of the waterfall's existence, having lived in that area for at least a few months?  Seems kind of weird.  But, religious people are often given to fantasy and embellishments when it comes to their past experiences.  Need I mention Ben Carson?

(January 14, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You can be brilliant at "a"...and a complete dunce at "b".  Whats the problem Ath?  Wanna make the case for stringing up the better man?  Be my guest.

But that's not what you said, is it? 

You didn't say "his views on ____ are moronic." You very clearly said he sounds like a moron. 

Don't back track and then accuse the other person of being out of line for calling you out.

One is not open minded simply because they call themselves open minded. You seem to care very much about being seen as open minded, listing it as your religious views. You seem to do this to hide your status as a theist, rather than actually being open minded.

Feel free to explain how I (or others) have mischaracterized the bible. I notice that you've failed to do that in your response to me.

(January 16, 2016 at 1:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I reject vicarious redemption and so cannot be a christian.  I'm not the kind of guy who's going to string up the better man for my own misdeeds...even if it's an option.  Pretty cut and dry.  Have I missed anything, in your estimation?
(good thing you came along to tell people what they believe or fear, missionary, if it weren't for your expert opinion we might never know......lol)

To avoid misunderstanding on my part, please define "vicarious redemption" and why you reject if specifically.

Who knows? I may agree with you. 

Oh, one other minor point. I'm NOT a missionary. I think we should be able to agree on the definition of that word readily enough.

(January 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Cecelia Wrote: One is not open minded simply because they call themselves open minded.  You seem to care very much about being seen as open minded, listing it as your religious views.  You seem to do this to hide your status as a theist, rather than actually being open minded.  

Feel free to explain how I (or others) have mischaracterized the bible.  I notice that you've failed to do that in your response to me.

I do it to avoid being forced into a specific cubbyhole by a label. As you and Rhythm seem intent upon doing.

As for your mischaracterization of the Bible, that would require many, many threads to illustrate - easy enough but time consuming.

Let me ask: Have you actually read the Bible for yourself? Old Testament? New Testament? How much? How often? How recently?

Thanks.

If it's so easy, go ahead and do it now. Do it with my post in this very topic. The one you already responded to. I'll be waiting.

And yes, I've read the old testament and new testament for myself. How often? I don't read it any more, because I don't read fairy tales for pre-medieval misogynists.

(January 16, 2016 at 1:42 pm)Cecelia Wrote: If it's so easy, go ahead and do it now.  Do it with my post in this very topic.  The one you already responded to.  I'll be waiting.

And yes, I've read the old testament and new testament for myself.  How often?  I don't read it any more, because I don't read fairy tales for pre-medieval misogynists.

I also asked how much of it you have read to gauge your depth of understanding.

If I read the Lord of the Rings once, I get the overall plot. If I read it again, I see a little more that I missed the first time. If I'm serious, I read the Silmarillion and other prequel material to understand the entire history of Middle Earth.

So, is your depth of understanding more than superficial? How old were you when you last read the NT seriously?