Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm
(March 23, 2013 at 2:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (March 23, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: God is impatient, unkind, envious, God is boastful and prideful, He is easily angered, He delights in evil. Have it your way. If you can only read the bible literally, then you don't have any greater insight than the fundamentalist Christians you criticize.
If you're not reading the bible literally, what basis do you have to say that any of it is true? The fact is, the literal reading is the only one you can be absolutely sure was what was intended by the original authors.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 2911
Threads: 11
Joined: July 20, 2012
Reputation:
16
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:05 pm
(March 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you're not reading the bible literally, what basis do you have to say that any of it is true? The fact is, the literal reading is the only one you can be absolutely sure was what was intended by the original authors.
Fundie Atheists to the Rescue!!!!
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Heh.
I don't think that the original writers were literalists; much of the Bible's content reads like mythology and morality plays, punctuated by attempts at recording historical events long after they'd occurred.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm
(March 23, 2013 at 3:05 pm)catfish Wrote: (March 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you're not reading the bible literally, what basis do you have to say that any of it is true? The fact is, the literal reading is the only one you can be absolutely sure was what was intended by the original authors.
Fundie Atheists to the Rescue!!!!
I'm sorry, is there some additional how-to guide for the bible written by the original authors pointing out where the book slips into metaphor, and when it comes back to literalism again? Did I miss that?
My point is, the only thing you can be totally sure of are the words written on the page- and yes, even then it's a bastardization- but when you're picking and choosing what's literal and what's not, the only guide you're using is what feels good to you. That's not exactly inerrant.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 328
Threads: 25
Joined: August 15, 2010
Reputation:
4
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:30 pm
(March 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm sorry, is there some additional how-to guide for the bible written by the original authors pointing out where the book slips into metaphor, and when it comes back to literalism again? Did I miss that?
... the only guide you're using is what feels good to you. That's not exactly inerrant.
Or what church leaders tell you to take literally or figuratively. It might be OK nowadays to eat shellfish, for instance, but it's not cool anymore to stone gay people ( unless, of course, you're this guy) or burn random women whom you think might be witches.
Our Daily Train blog at jeremystyron.com
---
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea | By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown | Till human voices wake us, and we drown. — T.S. Eliot
"... man always has to decide for himself in the darkness, that he must want beyond what he knows. ..." — Simone de Beauvoir
"As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again." — Albert Camus, "The Stranger"
---
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm
If you aren't going to interpret the Bible literally, or are only going to choose which parts you wish to view as literal and which are metaphorical, there's no point in reading it at all. If all you want to do is interpret it so that it coincides with your preconceived notions, why not just scrap that rag and invent your own personal theology? You'll have just as much evidence of its truth as the authors of the Bible did, after all.
I do wonder just how one interprets the God of the Bible to be wise or good, and the only answer I get is that you have to be stupid and cruel yourself to come to that conclusion.
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm
(March 23, 2013 at 12:05 am)Godschild Wrote: Thanks guys for helping me with the point I made. You all are so considerate.
Your god remains a figment of your imagination.
And since I think you are a fucking lunatic your imagination counts little.
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2013 at 6:28 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(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. Just be honest and say you're either too indifferent or too lazy to understand anything beyond the Reader's Digest version.
Posts: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 6:56 pm
(March 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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. Just be honest and say you're either too indifferent or too lazy to understand anything beyond the Reader's Digest version.
1000's of Christian sects, all reading different parts literally and not literally. Many claiming all the others are 'not true Christians'.
Yet every Christian believes they have the one heuristic that is able to determine exactly which parts are literal and which parts aren't.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Prove Christianity, not Theism in General
March 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm
Wooters Wrote:First you say the bible doesn't make sense if you take it literally, but then you insist it can only be read literally.
These two statements do not contradict.
|
