(March 23, 2013 at 6:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 1000's of Christian sects, all reading different parts literally and not literally. Many claiming all the others are 'not true Christians'.

Yet another Atheist 101 pat answer, so predictable. Most all agree on the essentials of salvation, from Catholics to Calvinists. The disagreements are minor regarding baptism, pre-trib, post-trib, etc.

The Catholics believe that you do not get to heaven except through the Church. Baptists think Catholics are idol-worshiping sinners who are going to hell. Jehovah's Witnesses think that 144,000 people will go to heaven and no more. Calvinists believe that the whole thing is pre-determined and it doesn't matter what you do, say, or think.

The funny thing about Atheist 101 is that theists have been failing that class since it was instituted.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The Catholics believe that you do not get to heaven except through the Church.

Fail! You can be outside the Church and still be saved. Catholics call it 'perfect contrition'.

(March 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 23, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The Catholics believe that you do not get to heaven except through the Church.

Fail! You can be outside the Church and still be saved. Catholics call it 'perfect contrition'.

While Catholics may believe that, I know growing up in fundamentalist churches of which there are quite a few, the feeling isn't mutual. Many of them believe that most Catholics go to hell. A few denominations may even think the other denominations are hell bound.

(March 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 23, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The Catholics believe that you do not get to heaven except through the Church.

Fail! You can be outside the Church and still be saved. Catholics call it 'perfect contrition'.

A lot of individual Catholics think otherwise. My Catholic grandparents had a deep dislike of Protestants and were certain they were going to hell. They had a bitch fight with my Episcopal father because each of them wanted me baptized in their own moronic superstition.

In any case, Catholic chauvinism regarding entrance to heaven was official church doctrine until Vatican II in 1964, so either God changed his mind after almost two thousand years, or the Church has retreated, as religion always does, when the hard line no longer effectively scares stupid people into converting.

(March 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 23, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The Catholics believe that you do not get to heaven except through the Church.

Fail! You can be outside the Church and still be saved. Catholics call it 'perfect contrition'.

Too bad Pentecostals shatter that heretical teaching by saying "only through Jesus can you get to the Father".

Christians 1 - Christians 0

(March 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The fact is, the literal reading is the only one you can be absolutely sure was what was intended by the original authors.

Absolutely certain about that? You're trying to have it both ways. First you say the bible doesn't make sense if you take it literally, but then you insist it can only be read literally.

Those two things are exactly what I'm saying. The bible doesn't make any sense literally, which is precisely why you guys have to resort to metaphorical interpretations, but none of them are right either. The fact is, you're just covering up the contradictions and immorality with what feels good to you, you have absolutely zero authority to decide what is and isn't metaphor. And furthermore, you wouldn't accept this method from any other book, just your bible!

Imagine this: I am repairing a machine, using a manual to go through step by step (and I chose a nonfiction book for this example because you guys consider the bible to have real world consequences.) but you see that I'm skipping steps here and there, doing things differently on others, and just generally not following what the book says. So you ask me why, and I respond that I know that some parts of this manual are metaphor, so I'm justified in ignoring or altering them. Obviously your next question is how do I know that, right? Well, I answer that some guy told me so. Was the guy involved in constructing the machine, or writing the manual? No, no, he came later, but boy has he read the manual a lot!

After a moment's thought you call this labeling of passages as metaphorical arbitrary, and in response I get terribly offended and call you too lazy to understand the brilliance of this man's mind. Now, there's two questions I must ask: one, does this scenario seem ridiculous to you?

And more importantly, does that machine (let's just call it the soul, shall we?) work correctly when I turn it on, after ignoring the manual?

Quote:Just be honest and say you're either too indifferent or too lazy to understand anything beyond the Reader's Digest version.

You call it indifference, I call it honesty.

ChadWooters Wrote:You're trying to have it both ways. First you say the bible doesn't make sense if you take it literally, but then you insist it can only be read literally.

If I may...

It doesn't make sense literally because of the numerous contradictions that sort of reading spawns e.g. two creation accounts. But then a metaphorical reading doesn't work because of the apparent intricate relationship between the OT and NT e.g. the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Surely the genealogy isn't from metaphorical man to literal man? Therefore, a literally reading seems to be the most logical... as far as "logical" goes with the Bible.

EDIT: this reminds me of a chat I had with a Christian friend at uni yesterday.. he was telling me Genesis is obviously poetry about an historic event. I asked him how there can be two creation accounts then, and so he says "well, it's poetry", so then I ask, "well, how do we know Adam & Eve were people then??" then the all too familiar face of someone trying to have their cake and eat it unfolded before me...

(March 24, 2013 at 3:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If I may...

It doesn't make sense literally because of the numerous contradictions that sort of reading spawns e.g. two creation accounts. But then a metaphorical reading doesn't work because of the apparent intricate relationship between the OT and NT e.g. the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Surely the genealogy isn't from metaphorical man to literal man? Therefore, a literally reading seems to be the most logical... as far as "logical" goes with the Bible.

Bolded by me to highlight the hilarious logic applied by fundie atheists.

Seriously? It doesn't make sense literally so therefore the literal reading is the most logical??? Who taught you about logic?
.

I know why the bible has to be "interpreted". Its because it is an incoherent mishmash of vapid stories, intolerant laws and dubious historical events.

To get any sense out of it you have to read a bit and shoehorn in some deep meaning.

I read the bible and it was shit.