(April 12, 2017 at 8:37 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 12, 2017 at 7:28 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Oh, I've read it sport.  Cover to cover.  It really comes down to being honest and distinguishing what you want it to say and what the words say.  Take away the presupposition and the emotional baggage and it shows itself for what it really is.

I've seen this a lot. Atheists say they have read the Bible. That does not mean they understand Christianity (Nevis is an obvious example of this). It is impossible to understand doctrine with a quick reading from cover to cover. It takes hours of study on every doctrine to understand the nuances and technical relationship with other doctrines.

 
Not going to get away with that Steve, we have. You not liking our book review again, is your baggage. 

That is fucking bullshit.

Two people go to the new Star Wars movie together.

Person A, " Man this new Star Wars movie kicks ass"

Person B. "What? It sucked and here is why it sucked".

Both people went and saw the same movie.

Now please spare us because I doubt you spend much time reading other holy books from others religions. How much of the Koran, or Buddha's writings or the Hindu Baghavad Gita or Vedas have you read? 

Yes we have read about how God sets up two innocent pawns in the garden then blames them for the game he didn't have to set up. We know about the immoral story of him allowing for the death of all the Egyptian first born over a beef he had with an adult. Would it be ok for me to allow your kid to die if I had a beef with you? And the flood never happened, salt water animals would die in fresh water, fresh water animals would die in salt water, most species in any case. And who exactly did the Noah family have sex with with such a limited gene pool? 

Yep, it is perfectly ok even as a metaphor, to sell a kid the idea that it is ok to beat the shit out of or murder someone for calling you "baldly".  Yes I have read the she bear story and find it to be vile. It isn't standing up for the bullied, it is a motif selling REVENGE. Same with the infanticide of the Egyptian first born and the flood. 

Isaiah 45:7 , Malachi 2.3 ect ect ect ect......... 

You not liking our book review does not mean we have not read it. You just don't like how we view your book.

(April 12, 2017 at 8:37 am)SteveII Wrote: I've seen this a lot. Atheists say they have read the Bible. That does not mean they understand Christianity (Nevis is an obvious example of this). It is impossible to understand doctrine with a quick reading from cover to cover. It takes hours of study on every doctrine to understand the nuances and technical relationship with other doctrines.

I've seen this a lot, theists study passages and wrinkle out bits of clarity that aren't there.

If they spent the same amount of time studying any other book they would discover that that book whatever it was held surprising truths and answers.

Its not the book the reader.

(April 12, 2017 at 7:28 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(April 11, 2017 at 4:32 pm)Drich Wrote: One man 'loop hole' is another man's "It was spelled out on page to address that specific question!!!

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you've read the bible, or are you just constantly thwarted solid exegetical reading of it. (because you haven't read it and just assume you are smarter than those who wrote it

Oh, I've read it sport.  Cover to cover.  It really comes down to being honest and distinguishing what you want it to say and what the words say.  Take away the presupposition and the emotional baggage and it shows itself for what it really is.

So you just 'forgot' about that "loop hole?" Or rather the reason Peter Gave to those who asked about Christ in the same way the OP did? Hw is that a loop hole again??

---

(April 12, 2017 at 9:06 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yeah, I read it cover-to-cover, twice. If only I had someone telling me what to think about it, I might have understood  what I was supposed to instead of what it actually says.

---

Drich Wrote:yet... that 'typical answer' is being used not by a Christian but by an atheist.

Guess you couldn't wait to give a cop out resonse so you had to generate your own opportunity... Good job! 

So are you saying the priest in the example was an atheist or are you just calling Regina a liar?

What's there to interpret this time around? The OP asked a question that was asked of peter in the BCV I left and I simply pointed to His (peter's) answer.

If you read the bible then surly you read this passage. Again it starts out with the same question started in the OP and Peter a deciple of Christ answers it directly. Again why would you need anyone to tell you how to interpret that?

Drich Wrote:What's there to interpret this time around? The OP asked a question that was asked of peter in the BCV I left and I simply pointed to His (peter's) answer.

If you read the bible then surly you read this passage. Again it starts out with the same question started in the OP and Peter a deciple of Christ answers it directly. Again why would you need anyone to tell you how to interpret that?

Regina said a priest said 'God works in mysterious ways'. You made out like that's not something Christians really say, it's something atheists say Christians say.

So in Regina's story, do you think the priest was an atheist or do you think Regina made it up? If you don't think one of those two things, your reply to Regina makes no sense at all.

(April 12, 2017 at 11:47 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(April 12, 2017 at 8:37 am)SteveII Wrote: I've seen this a lot. Atheists say they have read the Bible. That does not mean they understand Christianity (Nevis is an obvious example of this). It is impossible to understand doctrine with a quick reading from cover to cover. It takes hours of study on every doctrine to understand the nuances and technical relationship with other doctrines.

Who said it was a quick read? You know nothing about my past or how much I have studied the bible, or anything else, asshole.  But, since I don't swallow it hook, line and sinker, I must not "understand" it.  But, I admit.  I can't understand what you call christianity.  Your "hours of study" is nothing more than making up explanations that sound good to you for all the crap and inconsistencies that the bible is rife with.

All I can go on is your near constant mis-characterizations of what Christianity is and believes. Which, when pressed, are about an inch deep. These two things are consistent with a person not having read the Bible in as systematic study to understand what various authors have to contribute to the understanding of a particular doctrine or another.

(April 12, 2017 at 8:28 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 12, 2017 at 11:47 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Who said it was a quick read? You know nothing about my past or how much I have studied the bible, or anything else, asshole.  But, since I don't swallow it hook, line and sinker, I must not "understand" it.  But, I admit.  I can't understand what you call christianity.  Your "hours of study" is nothing more than making up explanations that sound good to you for all the crap and inconsistencies that the bible is rife with.

All I can go on is your near constant mis-characterizations of what Christianity is and believes. Which, when pressed, are about an inch deep. These two things are consistent with a person not having read the Bible in as systematic study to understand what various authors have to contribute to the understanding of a particular doctrine or another.

The only person making this about you is YOU, not us. Yes we are dealing with YOU right now, but you are not the first Christian to make the attempt to convince us, nor are you the only person out of 7 BILLION to make all sorts of religious claims. Get over yourself. We are not going to rape your women or barbecue your kittens. We simply are not buying your old book of myths.

There is no mis-characterization. That was then this is now. Just like if one were to still believe in Apollo we'd say the same, THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW. It was understandable that humans WORLDWIDE invented all sorts of god claims, BECAUSE HUMANS WORLDWIDE didn't have our modern understanding of the world.

Quit faking your indignation. If you were claiming "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup in the Roman Colosseum in 425BCE." you want us to respond "That's cute", because we wont. The correct response is "Bullshit, that's not true".

The Muslim thinks the Christian got it wrong, the Christian thinks the Muslim got it wrong, the Jew thinks the Christian got it wrong, the Muslim thinks the Christian got it wrong. The Buddhist think they got it right, the Hindu thinks they got it right. I think most humans simply buy their clubs because they real want to be right, not because they have facts, but because it is merely comforting to most humans.

Are you anywhere close to getting it yet? WE HAVE read your book, we don't need to hear you claim " I really studied my book", yea so what, apologist exist in EVERY RELIGION. Get in line take a number. You are not the first and you most certainly are not the only fan of the only religion in the world.

(April 12, 2017 at 8:28 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 12, 2017 at 11:47 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Who said it was a quick read? You know nothing about my past or how much I have studied the bible, or anything else, asshole.  But, since I don't swallow it hook, line and sinker, I must not "understand" it.  But, I admit.  I can't understand what you call christianity.  Your "hours of study" is nothing more than making up explanations that sound good to you for all the crap and inconsistencies that the bible is rife with.

All I can go on is your near constant mis-characterizations of what Christianity is and believes. Which, when pressed, are about an inch deep. These two things are consistent with a person not having read the Bible in as systematic study to understand what various authors have to contribute to the understanding of a particular doctrine or another.

No, my views are on of objective study, rather than soaked in the narrow mindedness of, "I believe this to be true, so let's find ways, no matter how ridiculous they may be, to explain the nonsense parts.  Then, when it's pointed out just how ridiculous the explanations are, we'll just say that you have to read it MY way."

Any characterizations I make on christianity comes from being raised in it, as well as what other christians have said.

(April 13, 2017 at 9:30 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(April 12, 2017 at 8:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: All I can go on is your near constant mis-characterizations of what Christianity is and believes. Which, when pressed, are about an inch deep. These two things are consistent with a person not having read the Bible in as systematic study to understand what various authors have to contribute to the understanding of a particular doctrine or another.

No, my views are on of objective study, rather than soaked in the narrow mindedness of, "I believe this to be true, so let's find ways, no matter how ridiculous they may be, to explain the nonsense parts.  Then, when it's pointed out just how ridiculous the explanations are, we'll just say that you have to read it MY way."

Any characterizations I make on christianity comes from being raised in it, as well as what other christians have said.

You seem to paint with a broad brush and constantly avoid details of any kind. What specific doctrine have you "objectively studied" that you think that Christians have twisted meaning into? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

(April 13, 2017 at 10:08 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 13, 2017 at 9:30 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: No, my views are on of objective study, rather than soaked in the narrow mindedness of, "I believe this to be true, so let's find ways, no matter how ridiculous they may be, to explain the nonsense parts.  Then, when it's pointed out just how ridiculous the explanations are, we'll just say that you have to read it MY way."

Any characterizations I make on christianity comes from being raised in it, as well as what other christians have said.

You seem to paint with a broad brush and constantly avoid details of any kind. What specific doctrine have you "objectively studied" that you think that Christians have twisted meaning into? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

Knock it off Steve, nobody here is singling you out. Nobody is painting a "broad brush". 

THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW, what part of that do you not understand? We say the same to Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. HUMANS back then did NOT have the benefit of modern science. Humans back then were tribal and made bad claims based on the social norms of the societies they grew up in.

We reject your God claim for the same reason you reject the claims of the ancient Egyptians polytheistic gods. NOTHING MORE, again, THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW.

GROW UP, you wont get smoted by God or Thor or Yoda if you figure out you got it wrong.

(April 13, 2017 at 10:08 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 13, 2017 at 9:30 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: No, my views are on of objective study, rather than soaked in the narrow mindedness of, "I believe this to be true, so let's find ways, no matter how ridiculous they may be, to explain the nonsense parts.  Then, when it's pointed out just how ridiculous the explanations are, we'll just say that you have to read it MY way."

Any characterizations I make on christianity comes from being raised in it, as well as what other christians have said.

You seem to paint with a broad brush and constantly avoid details of any kind. What specific doctrine have you "objectively studied" that you think that Christians have twisted meaning into? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

Why would I care to post details of the differences one christian has from every other?  I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Whatever I post, you'll just come back with some apologist's pap or default to the "You're not reading it right" bullshit.

You're beliefs have no leg to stand on.  They're a combination of wishful thinking and emotional drivel with a BIG dose of ego thrown in.  I won't argue point by point because I won't be dragged down to your level.  I'll just sit and snipe at your ludicrous argument until it's no longer entertaining to me.