The Bible

[Tiberius]

Incredibly thin evidence, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Interpretation is key here, and factually, nothing backs up your assertion.

Sources? No? Oh well. Where is your proof that the stories were written down as fiction, meant to be read as fiction. Every civilization has creation myths, and they all believe them to b true. To make an exception here is ignorant.

You're incredibly insulting chatpilot for someone so seemingly ignorant of the subject.

Oh shut up fr0d0. Point out anything remotely "incredibly insulting" in the paragraph you quoted. Whining isn't a virtue you know...

[fr0d0]

Rational Bible interpretation and study of Judaic interpretation tells us that Adrian. You're 'anti' stance isn't proof I'm afraid.

Didn't you give me a ban for JOKINGLY (with smiley) telling you to "shut up" Adrian?

Incredibly insulting, following about 3 that I glossed over without comment tonight: "you would know this if you picked up a book on theology or modern christian thought every once in awhile"

[Tiberius]

Modern interpretation doesn't tell us anything about what people were thinking 3000 years ago fr0d0...I mean, it's kinda obvious!

No, I gave you a warning for breaking the rules and being insulting to people for no reason. I told you to shut up because you were playing the victim again and claiming someone was insulting you.

I find nothing insulting about chatpilot's remark. It is common knowledge that if you pick up a book about a subject and read it you will become more knowledgeable about the subject. Given that chatpilot has been reading these books for years I would expect he was encouraging you to go out and read a (Christian) book that challenges your very odd opinion on this.

[fr0d0]

Modern interpretation doesn't tell us anything about what people were thinking 3000 years ago fr0d0...I mean, it's kinda obvious!

I said 'modern' did I?

No, I gave you a warning for breaking the rules and being insulting to people for no reason. I told you to shut up because you were playing the victim again and claiming someone was insulting you.

Breaking the rules AND insulting for no reason. You revere yourself to be the judge of my reason, which you repeatedly claim to not understand. Yet AGAIN you assert knowledge beyond your understanding telling me what I feel. Nice.

I find nothing insulting about chatpilot's remark. It is common knowledge that if you pick up a book about a subject and read it you will become more knowledgeable about the subject. Given that chatpilot has been reading these books for years I would expect he was encouraging you to go out and read a (Christian) book that challenges your very odd opinion on this.

And I've read and am reading books on the subject continuously. chatpilot claims a long history of study, but my years of study outnumber his, as if that matters. Like I said, resorting to insult is indicative of chatpilots loosening grasp on the debate. What he throws out in rubbishing and groundless jibes reflects his own worries. That's all.

[Tiberius]

You said "rational interpretation", which to me sounds like a modern interpretation, given that rationality is a rather modern thing (and if you disagree then please look to the witch hunts, alchemy, etc of the past).

Fine, if you want me to remove the "and" then I will. "Breaking the rules; being insulting to people for no reason". I am not judging your reason, I am judging the fact that when someone keeps on disagreeing with you, you either start insulting them, avoiding the point/question, or attempt to play the victim. Neither of these are honourable in any way, shape, or form.

To say that chatpilot was insulting you is just plain ridiculous. He told you to go out and read some more, he didn't tell you to go and fuck a donkey. Actually, I suppose for a theist, going out and actually learning about something might be interpreted as an insult...I do apologise!

I think your statement "my years of study outnumber his" is a baseless assertion. He never claimed to have more years of study than you, so why do you feel it necessary to say that you supposedly do. You are meant to be refuting his points, not claiming they are "rubbish" and "groundless" without actually giving evidence you know.

[pallywall]

a friend just referred me to an interesting take on the New Testament - it's an article called "The Pious Fraud" and its at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com - definitely check it out (better than the Da Vinci Code)

[fr0d0]

You said "rational interpretation", which to me sounds like a modern interpretation, given that rationality is a rather modern thing (and if you disagree then please look to the witch hunts, alchemy, etc of the past).

the rationality of the Bible is as old as IT is. Nutcases came and went across the centuries. It's laughable you quote them here.

Fine, if you want me to remove the "and" then I will. "Breaking the rules; being insulting to people for no reason". I am not judging your reason, I am judging the fact that when someone keeps on disagreeing with you, you either start insulting them, avoiding the point/question, or attempt to play the victim. Neither of these are honourable in any way, shape, or form.

They didn't 'keep on disagreeing with me'. They 'hounded me' (their own term). That you frown upon humour when it's not from your own side of the discussion is your own problem. Above you broke your own rules, in the same way that I did. You need to raise your own warning level to 50%.

To say that chatpilot was insulting you is just plain ridiculous. He told you to go out and read some more, he didn't tell you to go and fuck a donkey. Actually, I suppose for a theist, going out and actually learning about something might be interpreted as an insult...I do apologise!

How pathetic is that. You really do push credulity sometimes. Try and retain some balance please. chatpilot tried 3 times yesterday to belittle my point by simply saying that I didn't know my subject, only using derogatory terms. No proofs were offered. Unlike you I don't base my thoughts on well worn rhetoric. I also don't seek to bludgeon my opinions onto other people as you do.

I think your statement "my years of study outnumber his" is a baseless assertion. He never claimed to have more years of study than you, so why do you feel it necessary to say that you supposedly do. You are meant to be refuting his points, not claiming they are "rubbish" and "groundless" without actually giving evidence you know.

This is chatpilot's assertion that we should take his opinion seriously because he has many years of experience. I just happen to have more years experience than he quoted. Am I not entitled to mention that then? I also qualified that by saying that it didn't really matter. I didn't use that to refute his points, just defend against the very thing you seem to be accusing me of.

[Tiberius]

the rationality of the Bible is as old as IT is. Nutcases came and went across the centuries. It's laughable you quote them here.

The "rationality" of the Bible is irrelevant here. Rationality is derived from those who interpret it, and in actual fact you seem to understand how irrational the Bible is (i.e. Genesis story / myth) so I'm confused as to why you actually said it was rational. The point, which you seem to be skipping around, is that the people who wrote the Bible did so because they were writing an explanation of the world, how it got there, etc based on the only method they had at the time: stories passed down through the generations.

Above you broke your own rules, in the same way that I did. You need to raise your own warning level to 50%.

How many times did we have to explain this to you last time? Swearing at someone isn't grounds for a ban or a warning. Repeatedly doing so every post might count as grounds for disruption, but everyone is allowed to swear here.

How pathetic is that. You really do push credulity sometimes. Try and retain some balance please. chatpilot tried 3 times yesterday to belittle my point by simply saying that I didn't know my subject, only using derogatory terms. No proofs were offered. Unlike you I don't base my thoughts on well worn rhetoric. I also don't seek to bludgeon my opinions onto other people as you do.

Lol, "derogatory terms". You do make me laugh sometimes fr0d0. I've just re-read the posts from yesterday and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you actually know what a derogatory term is?

This is chatpilot's assertion that we should take his opinion seriously because he has many years of experience. I just happen to have more years experience than he quoted. Am I not entitled to mention that then? I also qualified that by saying that it didn't really matter. I didn't use that to refute his points, just defend against the very thing you seem to be accusing me of.

You are well within your rights to say you have more years of experience, but you offer no proof. That is my problem with your assertion. I could easily walk into a conversation and say "Well I have more experience than you so my opinion is better, etc" but it wouldn't be a very good argument if it weren't true now would it. Even if it were true, it doesn't have much bearing on the conversation since a person may have read completely different books on the subject.

[chatpilot]

Frodo based on your statements I get the impression that you dont have a strong knowledge of the Old Testament.I dont mean to be offensive but yes,I feel that you should read the bible straight through objectively,I have done it 4 times one of those times in Spanish.And maybe that would give you a better grasp of most of what I am talking about.Now if the writers and even todays current believers dont take the bible literally,then why do you suppose that the battle to teach ID in our schools is so prevalent?The christian fundamentalists have been trying for years to present their mythological creation myth as fact in our public schools here in America.I dont know how it is in other countries but speaking from my country and my personal experience,literalist christians far outnumber those that you say are non-literalist.

[fr0d0]

The "rationality" of the Bible is irrelevant here. Rationality is derived from those who interpret it, and in actual fact you seem to understand how irrational the Bible is (i.e. Genesis story / myth) so I'm confused as to why you actually said it was rational. The point, which you seem to be skipping around, is that the people who wrote the Bible did so because they were writing an explanation of the world, how it got there, etc based on the only method they had at the time: stories passed down through the generations.

Rational to you means only facts. You deny yourself any other logic (by that statement).
The people who wrote the bible explain beginnings and endings IN SPIRITUAL LANGUAGE.

How many times did we have to explain this to you last time? Swearing at someone isn't grounds for a ban or a warning. Repeatedly doing so every post might count as grounds for disruption, but everyone is allowed to swear here.

I'm in no doubt thanks. Direct attacks on people are disallowed, quite clearly. I told you to shut up, I get a warning for SPECIFICALLY THAT. You it seems are immune.

Lol, "derogatory terms". You do make me laugh sometimes fr0d0. I've just re-read the posts from yesterday and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you actually know what a derogatory term is?

It appears that you have no clue.

You are well within your rights to say you have more years of experience, but you offer no proof. That is my problem with your assertion. I could easily walk into a conversation and say "Well I have more experience than you so my opinion is better, etc" but it wouldn't be a very good argument if it weren't true now would it. Even if it were true, it doesn't have much bearing on the conversation since a person may have read completely different books on the subject.

The point is Adrian, that it's actually chatpilot asserting what you say and not me.

---

@ chatpilot:

You mean read it as a skeptic, as non understandable as it's meant to be for the non believer? You fail to point out a single proof of your claims. I'm here waiting believe me. If I could find one contradiction I'd be convinced, but so far I haven't found one. I'm very aware of the reams of skeptic information on the subject. It's all dross chatpilot. Sincerely. And I'm not ignoring anything. I don't shut out any other possibility. Your assertions are all hollow.