Ask a Bible college Student

[vorlon13]

. . . and Judaism . . .

[vorlon13]

We need a new term.

We have 'retcon' for retroactive continuity, and it's a term I've used a few times in going over some of the evolution of Mormonism over the decades (despite the Mormons themselves publishing explicit proof of their practice while steadfastly denying it occurs) and I've been comfortable using it.

But I'm 1/2 way through Jesus Interrupted, and some of the chicanery involved in supposed 'Holy Truth' doesn't really fit into the world of retconning.


I think we need the term:

retdiscon, in other words, retroactive discontinuity. Subsequent Bible writers and editors and correctors and forgers go back over some book, parable or verse and change it, but they don't fix 'continuity errors', they COMPOUND them !!


And I realize now, that is a better descriptive for some of the bullshit Joe Smith was trying to pass off. All kinds of things Joe (and subsequent Mormon poohbahs) changed turned out to be changes for the worse. Now, quite a bit of the 'worse' angle was the Mormons compulsion to publish doctrinal items, then change them, then publish the changed version and then hope nobody noticed anything changed. And of course that leads back to something that unfortunately for them, wasn't changed soon enough, and that is the command from God to be a record keeping people.

And of course, they did eventually catch on to the record keeping requirement, and that is you 'keep' them. Publishing things can be a problem, as they have failed to learn on so very, very, very many times.

[Minimalist]

What's wrong with Holy Horseshittery?

[vorlon13]

I'm learning how many different ways the faithful can fuck up their faith.
 
LOL!, I thought the Tanner's book blew LDS out of the water, Jesus Interrupted is General Sherman marching to the sea and obliterating Christianity every inch of the way.


Granted, I knew Biblical Inerrancy is ludicrous, but I did not fully appreciate just how totally, completely and thoroughly ludicrous it really is.  Anyone claiming adherence to the concept, is literally deluded, literally disturbed, and literally obsessed.

Won't stop me advocating it though, [snicker] Inerrancy remains their problem, not mine.  In fact it's even better it being so very, very, very much worse than I appreciated.

[Minimalist]

Think how much less fun we'd have around here without the assholes who insist that bullshit is inerrant, though.

[Aristocatt]

So...not to drudge up some older discussion...

I am wondering what your thoughts on the legality of abortion are.
I'll open this question up to C_L too!

I am assuming you are pro life. If that is the case:

Back when I was Catholic, Judith Thomson's argument for the legality of abortion was pretty compelling. I ended up being generally pro-abortion(legally, at the time I was still morally opposed, that conversion came later) prior to being Agnostic/Atheist.
I am curious if you(Emzah) or C_L have read it, and I am curious what your thoughts are.
Specifically, I found the very first hypothetical incredibly compelling.
I'm wondering if you think abortion in the case of rape should be illegal. If so could you provide a counter argument to Judith Thomson's first hypothetical? Link to the argument is below.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...homson.htm

If that it isn't the case that legally speaking you are pro-life, maybe you could expand on how your particular branch of theology handles the issue, if at all. E.g. Legal but immoral, or permissible, maybe a little more detail than that!

Also, belated welcome to the forums!

[vorlon13]

I'm not very tolerant of religious folks committing heresy in regards to abortion.