Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[RoadRunner79]

I find much in this thread very re-assuring!

It was very amusing one time, I was discussing with an atheist and started using the same tactics and reasoning that he was using against the Bible and God, against some of his arguments. Needless to say, the alledged Dr. Krauss still hasn't showed up at my house to show me a universe popping into existence from nothing, nor has "empty chair" Richard Dawkins given me a call either. So apparently I'm to assume on this alone, that their stories are just "fairy tales".

I had a guilty satisfaction when he called my arguments "silly".

[vorlon13]

So what is the ancient Hebrew word for Mammal?

The ancient Jews did not classify animals as we do, the word, or idea of the word mammals and all life classified under it is relitivly new. Your comparing a classification system that is only a couple hundred years old to a text/understanding of a people several thousand years old. A people who had no concept of your modern classification. How is that a fair compareson? How do we know your compareson is unfair?

When your god's knowledge is limited  by the knowledge of the culture that venerates him, that's a good indicator that he's an invention. I'm not saying they should know the Linnaean system.  I'm saying that they should know the difference between avians and mammals. Do you honestly think they were so stupid they couldn't tell? And even if they couldn't, wouldn't your god know? I mean,, he's the one who issued those dietary restrictions.

An all-knowing god could simply "inspire" the biblical author to say "don't eat these birds, and don't eat bats."

I may or may not get to the rest of your drivel.  It's too soon after waking up for me to wade through Biblical horseshit or inane walls of text.

Bat eggs, of course, are fine to eat.

[Esquilax]

What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear. 

The main claims are the ones most fought over, dude. You've got christians asserting a literal, fire and brimstone hell, and christians asserting a "separation from god," and all manner of in between states. You've got christians for whom belief alone is all you need to get to heaven, or belief and works, or belief in a highly specific subset of christian claims... and meanwhile all of those christians have different positions on whether other christians can get to heaven, or atheists, followers of other religions, and so on. Is the bible inerrant? Is it to be taken literally? Is god okay with homosexuals or not? What did Jesus think was really important?

You'll find that every denomination has its own interpretation of these questions, and so simply dismissing the argument about the multitude of different christian faiths on the basis that really those disagreements only occupy a small percentage of the book is disingenuous, as the problem isn't how much of the book is disputed, but how important those disputed claims are to the overall narrative of the piece. It's like if you had two huge groups of Star Wars fans, one of which believed that the Rebels won and the other believing that the Empire won, and we atheists came to the conclusion that clearly, one or more groups is very wrong here. But then you come along and want to pretend that both groups believe the same thing because it's only one disagreement yet there's six whole movies.

[robvalue]

I find much in this thread very re-assuring!

It was very amusing one time, I was discussing with an atheist and started using the same tactics and reasoning that he was using against the Bible and God, against some of his arguments. Needless to say, the alledged Dr. Krauss still hasn't showed up at my house to show me a universe popping into existence from nothing, nor has "empty chair" Richard Dawkins given me a call either. So apparently I'm to assume on this alone, that their stories are just "fairy tales".

I had a guilty satisfaction when he called my arguments "silly".

I don't get it. Reassuring in what way?

Are you saying Krauss and Dawkins aren't real because they didn't show up when you wanted them to? Or that we can reject their arguments because they didn't spontaneously contact you? I'm confused!

[Thumpalumpacus]

The atheists who bring it up, apparently. You've surely seen atheists make the charge of thousands of denominations before.

I think it's hilarious that Christians cannot even agree on the nature of the deity they claim to worship.

Well, it's hilarious until they turn violent ... and some inevitably do.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I find much in this thread very re-assuring!

It was very amusing one time, I was discussing with an atheist and started using the same tactics and reasoning that he was using against the Bible and God, against some of his arguments.  Needless to say, the alledged Dr. Krauss still hasn't showed up at my house to show me a universe popping into existence from nothing, nor has "empty chair" Richard Dawkins given me a call either.  So apparently I'm to assume on this alone, that their stories are just "fairy tales".  

I had a guilty satisfaction when he called my arguments "silly".

If your atheist friend was trying to use the "God should pop up on my command, or strike me down" argument in anything other than an ironic/rhetorical context, then he's an idiot.  On the other hand, the "argument from silence" is a much more nuanced and serious position.

And if you think that we "assume on this alone, that their stories are just 'fairy tales'", then you're  an idiot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It was very amusing one time, I was discussing with an atheist and started using the same tactics and reasoning that he was using against the Bible and God, against some of his arguments.

POIDH

[Minimalist]

To point out to you fools how you can't even agree among yourselves.  It's amusing to us.  One god but 40,000 religions.

Nothing dumber than a xtian.

Whoa, now, let's be fair... there's LOTS of religion that's dumber than Christianity. Lots dumber.

Dumber than THIS?



I don't know........

[Reforged]

Whoa, now, let's be fair... there's LOTS of religion that's dumber than Christianity. Lots dumber.

Dumber than THIS?



I don't know........

I had a counter-picture but the forum fucked me. -.-

[Edwardo Piet]

The "too many interpretations" claim is not wrong, it's rock solid.