independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 17th Oct 2018 3:12pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Typical incoherent babble about the Bible--from the left.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 12/23/17 2:38pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky said:

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality.

.

Leviticus 20:13 has Yahweh teaching the Israelites that “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death. Their blood will be on their own heads.

.

According to John Spong Paul was a closeted gay man. You know how was "warring in his members," that bit.

.

Spong is not part of the Bible though, is he. He is an interpreter of the Bible, someone who studies the Bible. Paul’s words in the Bible have him teaching homosexual acts the result of an impure, God-rejecting, heart (see Romans 1). I think Spong might well be right – that Paul may well have struggled with his own sexuality – but this insight is not found in the Bible. It is not what the Bible teaches. Paul considers the “urges in his members” something to be suppressed.

.

Jesus forgave the woman at the well. He wrote the sins of others in the sand.

.

In the same gospel from which you draw, Jesus smears dissenters as sons of the devil. Jesus only "forgives" those who worship him. Apparently not worshipping him is considered something that one needs to be "forgiven" for. Jesus comes across as a prick to everyone else.

.

Most of the book derives from an oral tradition. Big back then.

.

Exactly. Unreliable ideological hearsay, for the most part. Not the kind of thing one should centre their life around as a guiding moral or intellectual resource.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 12/23/17 3:22pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

toejam said:

The Bible is propaganda, for the most part. Most of its "historical" books are full of stuff that probably didn't happen, written by people with their own ideological agendas living generations after the events they proport to narrate.

.

This simply does not apply to the New Testament.

.

It absolutely does also apply to the New Testament. The New Testament's "historical" books (the gospels and acts) are also full of stuff that probably didn't happen, written by people with their own ideological agendas living generations after the events they purport to narrate. Regarding the rest of the NT's content, well, about two-thirds of the epistles are probably forgeries and its apocalypse is about as reliable as any other of the time (i.e. not very!)

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 12/23/17 3:51pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

.

This simply does not apply to the New Testament.

.

I have told you before that I will no longer play your games. As you have edited my reply, goodbye.

[Edited 12/23/17 15:51pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 12/23/17 4:00pm

toejam

avatar

You said my statement doesn't apply to the New Testament. I say that it does.

.

The New Testament, like the Old Testament, is propaganda, for the most part. Most of its "historical" books are full of stuff that probably didn't happen, written by people with their own ideological agendas living generations after the events they purport to narrate. No "game".

.

[Edited 12/23/17 16:02pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 12/23/17 4:15pm

IanRG

toejam said:

.

That you are now lying about whether you edited my post confirms I am right to call you on your games and refuse to reply again. You have not answered my whole post - Goodbye

[Edited 12/23/17 16:25pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 12/23/17 4:19pm

toejam

avatar

You're lying in saying that I've lied.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 12/23/17 5:01pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

You all need to read Karen Armstrong.

.

I've read two of Armstrong's books. And there is no way she would agree that if the Bible were to "go the way of the Epic of Gilgamesh", as Daesin hopes, then "morality would die".

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 12/23/17 10:59pm

Graycap23

avatar

The bible is complete nonsense.

Not 2 mention alot of u folks don't believe in aliens yet the GOD u worship is by definition an alien.lol......

[Edited 12/23/17 22:59pm]

FOOLS multiply when WISE Men & Women are silent.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 12/24/17 8:48am

Dasein

IanRG said:

IanRG said:

.

Sorry, I nearly missed this post as it was buried in amongst all the people posting in response to you.

.

The only words I put in your mouth are the ones you typed. It would have been nice for you to have responded to when I asked "At what point do you believe that [your preaching] allowed for organised Christianity to be not seen as inferior to your liberated, free, unconstained and unrestrained beliefs?"

.

It would have been nice if you addressed my comments on the inexorable link argument between Jesus' teaching on God and religion.

.

It is clear you cannot and will not discuss what I said and are just reiterating the same lines over and over. Other than your words confirming what I said, this has achieved nothing.

.

(1) To rephrase, putting aside that you alternated between being specifically anti-Bible and generally anti-organised religion - How do you learn about God by rejecting both?

.

(2) Rather than relying on the argument that, after you asked others to abandon their beliefs and replace them with your's because your's are more liberated, freer, unconstrained and unrestrained and the other person's are based on a book you want relegated to fiction and not to be used to ever guide people again - how on earth can you say none this means you believe your beliefs are superior? How is it a reasonable argument to say "I'm telling you I'm not" saying my beliefs are superior?

[Edited 12/23/17 11:21am]


(1) People who don't read the Bible or participate in an organized religion probably learn about God
the same way those people who learned about God before the bible was written and then organized
a religion thereafter did too. In other words: belief in God precedes the bible's existence and the
organization of those or any attending beliefs which follow (religion). You don't need a bible or reli-
gion in order for a numinous experience to occur.

(2) Offering one an alternative does not necessarily imply or state explicitly that the alternative is
superior to the original option. It's simply different. Agnosticism, as the scaffolding for conducting's
one's intellectual pursuit of God or obtaining some base knowledge is, in my opinion, such a perspec-
tive which allows for one to move about more freely because she is not tethered to making assertions
positively or negatively in light of some other claim to knowledge. In other words: Christians must
abide by the framing of the world via the Bible. Agnostics do not. Either way, that which may be
freer is not necessarily superior - overall - and I would never make that claim in the first place.



[Edited 12/24/17 8:49am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 12/24/17 8:55am

Dasein

toejam said:

IanRG said:

A good working definition of "Fake News" is factual, true and accurate news that Trump, Fox News, Breitbart and their supporters choose to deny where their denial lacks any logic or reasonable basis but they feel they must deny it because it does not support their extremist far-right ideological agenda, so they simply tag is as "fake" without any supporting rational argument.

.

Maybe my understanding of the term isn't quite right then...
.
Let me try again...

.

The Bible is propaganda, for the most part. Most of its "historical" books are full of stuff that probably didn't happen, written by people with their own ideological agendas living generations after the events they proport to narrate.

.

[Edited 12/23/17 13:27pm]


It used to drive me crazy that you would call the Bible "propaganda" because that word has such
negative connotations. Yet, in the true sense of the word, it could apply:

"the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution,
a cause, or a person"

"ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing
cause; also : a public action having such an effect"

So, now I do agree with you. However, I do not believe you are as charitable as I am - or are you?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 12/24/17 11:37am

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

(1) To rephrase, putting aside that you alternated between being specifically anti-Bible and generally anti-organised religion - How do you learn about God by rejecting both?

.

(2) Rather than relying on the argument that, after you asked others to abandon their beliefs and replace them with your's because your's are more liberated, freer, unconstrained and unrestrained and the other person's are based on a book you want relegated to fiction and not to be used to ever guide people again - how on earth can you say none this means you believe your beliefs are superior? How is it a reasonable argument to say "I'm telling you I'm not" saying my beliefs are superior?

[Edited 12/23/17 11:21am]


(1) People who don't read the Bible or participate in an organized religion probably learn about God
the same way those people who learned about God before the bible was written and then organized
a religion thereafter did too. In other words: belief in God precedes the bible's existence and the
organization of those or any attending beliefs which follow (religion). You don't need a bible or reli-
gion in order for a numinous experience to occur.

(2) Offering one an alternative does not necessarily imply or state explicitly that the alternative is
superior to the original option. It's simply different. Agnosticism, as the scaffolding for conducting's
one's intellectual pursuit of God or obtaining some base knowledge is, in my opinion, such a perspec-
tive which allows for one to move about more freely because she is not tethered to making assertions
positively or negatively in light of some other claim to knowledge. In other words: Christians must
abide by the framing of the world via the Bible. Agnostics do not. Either way, that which may be
freer is not necessarily superior - overall - and I would never make that claim in the first place.

.

(1) Whether people believed in a god/gods/spiritualisms before scriptures and organised religion is not in question or the question. The only way that people maintain a faith/belief/spiritual understanding is by numinous events. However, this does not allow for learning about God, just reinforcing your understanding of your spiritual beliefs. It does not allow for the collective sharing of understandings or of the interactions of God with creation. I am writing this on the day we celebrate the birth of God, the Son on Earth. I know this because people recognise that, just as with all knowledge, science, studies of what we know and how we contribute is that we stand on the shoulders of giants and add our little bit to make what we collectively know just that little bit greater. How we understand our place in the universe is not able to be made better and more complete by dropping all we have learned and recorded over time. This would never be suggested for maths, physics, chemistry, engineering or anything else just because before writing and social structures we found a way.

.

(2) Limiting your answer as if all you said was your way is freer but not necessarily superior is avoiding the question. Agnosticism is not about evangelising your religion as a replacement of other religions. You made the superiority claim by arguing that Freaky should drop his religion in favour of yours and why your's is better. It was not "Well this is an equal idea, why don't you try this?" - It was your are wrong, your book is wrong and should be relegated to fiction, your should abandon your religion because mine is more liberated, freer, unconstrained and unrestained. You made these arguments, there is nothing wrong with owning the implications of them.

.

Merry Christmas.

[Edited 12/24/17 12:42pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 12/24/17 4:52pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


(1) People who don't read the Bible or participate in an organized religion probably learn about God
the same way those people who learned about God before the bible was written and then organized
a religion thereafter did too. In other words: belief in God precedes the bible's existence and the
organization of those or any attending beliefs which follow (religion). You don't need a bible or reli-
gion in order for a numinous experience to occur.

(2) Offering one an alternative does not necessarily imply or state explicitly that the alternative is
superior to the original option. It's simply different. Agnosticism, as the scaffolding for conducting's
one's intellectual pursuit of God or obtaining some base knowledge is, in my opinion, such a perspec-
tive which allows for one to move about more freely because she is not tethered to making assertions
positively or negatively in light of some other claim to knowledge. In other words: Christians must
abide by the framing of the world via the Bible. Agnostics do not. Either way, that which may be
freer is not necessarily superior - overall - and I would never make that claim in the first place.

.

(1) Whether people believed in a god/gods/spiritualisms before scriptures and organised religion is not in question or the question. The only way that people maintain a faith/belief/spiritual understanding is by numinous events. However, this does not allow for learning about God, just reinforcing your understanding of your spiritual beliefs. It does not allow for the collective sharing of understandings or of the interactions of God with creation. I am writing this on the day we celebrate the birth of God, the Son on Earth. I know this because people recognise that, just as with all knowledge, science, studies of what we know and how we contribute is that we stand on the shoulders of giants and add our little bit to make what we collectively know just that little bit greater. How we understand our place in the universe is not able to be made better and more complete by dropping all we have learned and recorded over time. This would never be suggested for maths, physics, chemistry, engineering or anything else just because before writing and social structures we found a way.

.

(2) Limiting your answer as if all you said was your way is freer but not necessarily superior is avoiding the question. Agnosticism is not about evangelising your religion as a replacement of other religions. You made the superiority claim by arguing that Freaky should drop his religion in favour of yours and why your's is better. It was not "Well this is an equal idea, why don't you try this?" - It was your are wrong, your book is wrong and should be relegated to fiction, your should abandon your religion because mine is more liberated, freer, unconstrained and unrestained. You made these arguments, there is nothing wrong with owning the implications of them.

.

Merry Christmas.

[Edited 12/24/17 12:42pm]



1) You asked:

How do you learn about God by rejecting both?


And my answer was that the Bible and religion followed the revelation of God first. If your question
was "How do you learn about the God of {insert religious system here}?", then that would require a-
nother, different answer. The numinous event one experiences does not require codifying and con-
textualizing inside of religion in order for the individual to continue to nurture any relationship with
the divine that may follow afterwards. The Bible and religion is not necessary for God's involvement
in an individual's life: belief is.

2) I never said, explicitly, that my agnosticism was better because as an alternative it was freer and
didn't shackle one to the bible: you inferred that from my assertions. If I wanted to make that argu-
ment, I certainly would and I would back it up. I stand by what I said to you originally: just because
one is not tied to the bible ethically or morally (and is therefore not restrained and constrained as a
result) doesn't mean that person is "without morals"

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 12/24/17 9:49pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:



1) You asked:

How do you learn about God by rejecting both?


And my answer was that the Bible and religion followed the revelation of God first. If your question
was "How do you learn about the God of {insert religious system here}?", then that would require a-
nother, different answer. The numinous event one experiences does not require codifying and con-
textualizing inside of religion in order for the individual to continue to nurture any relationship with
the divine that may follow afterwards. The Bible and religion is not necessary for God's involvement
in an individual's life: belief is.

2) I never said, explicitly, that my agnosticism was better because as an alternative it was freer and
didn't shackle one to the bible: you inferred that from my assertions. If I wanted to make that argu-
ment, I certainly would and I would back it up. I stand by what I said to you originally: just because
one is not tied to the bible ethically or morally (and is therefore not restrained and constrained as a
result) doesn't mean that person is "without morals"

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

.

(1) Yes, that is the question I asked. It follows your context of being generally anti-organised religion not exclusively Christianity. Therefore the question was always "how do you learn about God where God is the god, gods or spiritualism as understood by any religion.

.

I personally cannot accept that it is sufficient to just experience a numinous event.

I personally cannot accept that God would provide these and never want us to learn and understand more - this is inconsistent with our God-given drive to explore, learn and seek to understand in every other field.

I personally cannot accept that how we nurture our relationships with God does not require us collectively sharing, understanding and responding to our relationship with God - This shared involvement is based on our shared belief.

.

(2) I already said you did not explicitly say your angnosticism was better when I said "without actually saying your beliefs are superior". It is unquestionably and clearly implicit in your arguments for your religion and against Freaky's, you desire to relegate the Bible to an book of fiction never to guide people anymore and your encouragement to Freaky to abandon his religion in favour of yours. And we are spending far too much effort on this.

.

You are confusing your response to Freaky as if it was to me: Before you said anything to me I already said to you "Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral." We two were never discussing the necessity of the Bible for a person to not be without morals because we both have always accepted that you can be moral without the Bible.

[Edited 12/24/17 21:51pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 12/25/17 7:38am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

.

(1) Yes, that is the question I asked. It follows your context of being generally anti-organised religion not exclusively Christianity. Therefore the question was always "how do you learn about God where God is the god, gods or spiritualism as understood by any religion.

.

I personally cannot accept that it is sufficient to just experience a numinous event.

I personally cannot accept that God would provide these and never want us to learn and understand more - this is inconsistent with our God-given drive to explore, learn and seek to understand in every other field.

I personally cannot accept that how we nurture our relationships with God does not require us collectively sharing, understanding and responding to our relationship with God - This shared involvement is based on our shared belief.

.

(2) I already said you did not explicitly say your angnosticism was better when I said "without actually saying your beliefs are superior". It is unquestionably and clearly implicit in your arguments for your religion and against Freaky's, you desire to relegate the Bible to an book of fiction never to guide people anymore and your encouragement to Freaky to abandon his religion in favour of yours. And we are spending far too much effort on this.

.

You are confusing your response to Freaky as if it was to me: Before you said anything to me I already said to you "Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral." We two were never discussing the necessity of the Bible for a person to not be without morals because we both have always accepted that you can be moral without the Bible.

[Edited 12/24/17 21:51pm]


1) As long as you realize that those personally unacceptable conditions may be personally acceptable
to another (and just as warranted as the reasons for your own), then this is fine with me; I don't see
things the way you do and I think it may be because my agnosticism allows me to not shoehorn god
into how I conceive the world!

2) Your very first comment directed towards me in this thread has the following:

Those without restraint who are unconstrained is a good definition of those without morals. Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral.


So, I stand by what I said to you originally: just because one is not tied to the bible ethically or mor-
ally (and is therefore not restrained and constrained as a
result) doesn't mean that person is "without
morals." In other words, your definition of "those without morals" being reflected in persons without
restraint who are unconstrained isn't a good one. In the context of being a moral agent and a think-
ing agent, having no ties to the bible and organized religion (this is what I meant by constraint and
restraint) doesn't mean you will be immoral or unethical. There are plenty of people who belong to a
collective founded in organized religion while reading the Bible and are completely and utterly immor-
al and unethical!

And please remind me: if you're acknowleding that not only Christians can be moral, then why are
you bothering me? Freaky could very well abandon organized religion and his bible and still be moral!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 12/25/17 12:40pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:


1) As long as you realize that those personally unacceptable conditions may be personally acceptable
to another (and just as warranted as the reasons for your own), then this is fine with me; I don't see
things the way you do and I think it may be because my agnosticism allows me to not shoehorn god
into how I conceive the world!

2) Your very first comment directed towards me in this thread has the following:

Those without restraint who are unconstrained is a good definition of those without morals. Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral.


So, I stand by what I said to you originally: just because one is not tied to the bible ethically or mor-
ally (and is therefore not restrained and constrained as a result) doesn't mean that person is "without
morals." In other words, your definition of "those without morals" being reflected in persons without
restraint who are unconstrained isn't a good one. In the context of being a moral agent and a think-
ing agent, having no ties to the bible and organized religion (this is what I meant by constraint and
restraint) doesn't mean you will be immoral or unethical. There are plenty of people who belong to a
collective founded in organized religion while reading the Bible and are completely and utterly immor-
al and unethical!

And please remind me: if you're acknowleding that not only Christians can be moral, then why are
you bothering me? Freaky could very well abandon organized religion and his bible and still be moral!

.

(1) That is why I said "I personally cannot accept". You should not even have to say this because in this thread I already repeated to you that I believe there are multiple paths to God and used the Islamic path as an example.

.

(2) Except your first reply to my comment was not what you are saying you said. It was "There is nothing I said in my post that asks Freaky to turn away from God, Ian. I asked him to turn away from the Bible and I asked him to turn away from religion (I meant, to be specific, religion of the organized persuasion). And those who are unconstrained and without restraint intellectually can still be moral creatures." My comment and your reply to it was in response to your call for your religion to replace Freaky's with reasons given for why yours is better and his should die out along with its scriptures.

.
No matter how you cut it, you were promoting/preaching/evangelising that your religion is implicitly superior to the one you wanted your audience to change from and that they should relegate their scriptures to fiction never to be referred to for moral or ethical reasons ever again. This is the reason I am bothering you - Freaky has shown here often that he is moral and ethical and he attributes this to his Christianity and to God. His path to God is just as valid as yours and your promotion of your path as (implicitly) superior to his is, in my opinion, immoral. I have many friends whose path is different from mine (be they Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Indigenous Australians, agnostic or non-believer etc: be they strict adherents all the way through to in name only). They are just as moral and ethical as I am. I would never ask them to turn away from their scriptures or religions because to do this is to ask them to turn away from their path to God and this is immoral. We all learn when we state why we believe something, not why others should let their beliefs die to be replaced by yours.

[Edited 12/25/17 12:50pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 12/25/17 1:33pm

toejam

avatar

Dasein said:

It used to drive me crazy that you would call the Bible "propaganda" because that word has such
negative connotations. Yet, in the true sense of the word, it could apply:

"the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution,
a cause, or a person"

"ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing
cause; also : a public action having such an effect"

So, now I do agree with you. However, I do not believe you are as charitable as I am - or are you?

.

I don't go out of my way to be charitable or skeptical. I try to be fair. I'm glad you agree that "propaganda" is an appropriate term for much of the Bible's content. Although I disagree that your strikeouts aren't found in the Bible. There certainly are portions written for the purpose of injuring / damaging / opposing individuals, ideas and institutions by way of spreading rumor. For example, Jesus in the Gospel of John calls the scribes and Pharisees the sons of the devil. In the synoptics, they are a "brood of vipers", etc. Jesus on the other hand is painted in unrealistically perfect colours - sinless, divine powers, always has a witty response to criticism, etc. The gospels are propaganda at its most basic. Sure, in some sense all historical writing can be called propaganda, however I think there's a distinction between what we would deem a modern fairly-written historical portrait that attempts to be objective, with something akin to cult-leader devotional propaganda. The gospels surely fit better in the latter.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 12/26/17 7:07am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

.

(1) That is why I said "I personally cannot accept". You should not even have to say this because in this thread I already repeated to you that I believe there are multiple paths to God and used the Islamic path as an example.

.

(2) Except your first reply to my comment was not what you are saying you said. It was "There is nothing I said in my post that asks Freaky to turn away from God, Ian. I asked him to turn away from the Bible and I asked him to turn away from religion (I meant, to be specific, religion of the organized persuasion). And those who are unconstrained and without restraint intellectually can still be moral creatures." My comment and your reply to it was in response to your call for your religion to replace Freaky's with reasons given for why yours is better and his should die out along with its scriptures.

.
No matter how you cut it, you were promoting/preaching/evangelising that your religion is implicitly superior to the one you wanted your audience to change from and that they should relegate their scriptures to fiction never to be referred to for moral or ethical reasons ever again. This is the reason I am bothering you - Freaky has shown here often that he is moral and ethical and he attributes this to his Christianity and to God. His path to God is just as valid as yours and your promotion of your path as (implicitly) superior to his is, in my opinion, immoral. I have many friends whose path is different from mine (be they Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Indigenous Australians, agnostic or non-believer etc: be they strict adherents all the way through to in name only). They are just as moral and ethical as I am. I would never ask them to turn away from their scriptures or religions because to do this is to ask them to turn away from their path to God and this is immoral. We all learn when we state why we believe something, not why others should let their beliefs die to be replaced by yours.

[Edited 12/25/17 12:50pm]


Ian, I really don't care about continuing this conversation with you. You think I was implicitly
saying agnosticism is superior to Freaky's theism; and you think I was immorally suggesting
that Freaky abandon God altogether.

You're wrong. But, you think you're right. Fucking move on!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 12/26/17 7:09am

Dasein

toejam said:

Dasein said:

It used to drive me crazy that you would call the Bible "propaganda" because that word has such
negative connotations. Yet, in the true sense of the word, it could apply:

"the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution,
a cause, or a person"

"ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing
cause; also : a public action having such an effect"

So, now I do agree with you. However, I do not believe you are as charitable as I am - or are you?

.

I don't go out of my way to be charitable or skeptical. I try to be fair. I'm glad you agree that "propaganda" is an appropriate term for much of the Bible's content. Although I disagree that your strikeouts aren't found in the Bible. There certainly are portions written for the purpose of injuring / damaging / opposing individuals, ideas and institutions by way of spreading rumor. For example, Jesus in the Gospel of John calls the scribes and Pharisees the sons of the devil. In the synoptics, they are a "brood of vipers", etc. Jesus on the other hand is painted in unrealistically perfect colours - sinless, divine powers, always has a witty response to criticism, etc. The gospels are propaganda at its most basic. Sure, in some sense all historical writing can be called propaganda, however I think there's a distinction between what we would deem a modern fairly-written historical portrait that attempts to be objective, with something akin to cult-leader devotional propaganda. The gospels surely fit better in the latter.


Nothing you've written here is prompting my usual "seek out that which you disagree with and zero
in on it" impulse.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 12/26/17 9:58am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The first will be last the last shall be first.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 12/26/17 10:00am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You all know we don't take the bible literally?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 12/26/17 1:31pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

(1) That is why I said "I personally cannot accept". You should not even have to say this because in this thread I already repeated to you that I believe there are multiple paths to God and used the Islamic path as an example.

.

(2) Except your first reply to my comment was not what you are saying you said. It was "There is nothing I said in my post that asks Freaky to turn away from God, Ian. I asked him to turn away from the Bible and I asked him to turn away from religion (I meant, to be specific, religion of the organized persuasion). And those who are unconstrained and without restraint intellectually can still be moral creatures." My comment and your reply to it was in response to your call for your religion to replace Freaky's with reasons given for why yours is better and his should die out along with its scriptures.

.
No matter how you cut it, you were promoting/preaching/evangelising that your religion is implicitly superior to the one you wanted your audience to change from and that they should relegate their scriptures to fiction never to be referred to for moral or ethical reasons ever again. This is the reason I am bothering you - Freaky has shown here often that he is moral and ethical and he attributes this to his Christianity and to God. His path to God is just as valid as yours and your promotion of your path as (implicitly) superior to his is, in my opinion, immoral. I have many friends whose path is different from mine (be they Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Indigenous Australians, agnostic or non-believer etc: be they strict adherents all the way through to in name only). They are just as moral and ethical as I am. I would never ask them to turn away from their scriptures or religions because to do this is to ask them to turn away from their path to God and this is immoral. We all learn when we state why we believe something, not why others should let their beliefs die to be replaced by yours.

[Edited 12/25/17 12:50pm]


Ian, I really don't care about continuing this conversation with you. You think I was implicitly
saying agnosticism is superior to Freaky's theism; and you think I was immorally suggesting
that Freaky abandon God altogether.

You're wrong. But, you think you're right. Fucking move on!

.

Please read what has been said to you and what you said before you just make an unsupported argument that others are wrong.

.

It simply is not possible to tell someone why your religion is better and that another person should drop their's to adopt yours and not, at the very least, be implicitly saying yours is better. It beggars belief that you can make these arguments for your religion and against his (and all other organised religions) but want people to believe that you don't believe your religion is better than the one you want to die out and have its scriptures relegated to fiction never to be consulted for moral or ethical guidance ever again. It is not possible to make the arguments you have and not be saying yours is markedly better. I don't just think you were implicitly saying your agnosticisim is superior to Freaky's theism, I have an understanding of comprehension, so I know it.

.

I also know your were immorally suggesting that Freaky abandon his religion and I never said you were suggesting he abandon God altogether. I said was that a person's religion defines how they believe in god/gods/spiritualisms so to seek to get them to change their religion to one you believe is better is seeking to change their understanding of God, NOT abandon God all together.

.

I said two posts ago that "And we are spending far too much effort on this.", so I willing accept your repeating of my advice that we move on.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 12/26/17 1:41pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

You all know we don't take the bible literally?

.

Genuinely curious... Do yo believe Jesus's mother conceived without intercourse with a man? Was she a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 12/26/17 3:00pm

luvsexy4all

so if a person were to live their life according to the teachings and philosophies of the bible (whether u believe them or not)...they'd be doomed according to some people on here....

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 12/26/17 4:10pm

Dasein

toejam said:

2freaky4church1 said:

You all know we don't take the bible literally?

.

Genuinely curious... Do yo believe Jesus's mother conceived without intercourse with a man? Was she a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?


Christians who realize the bible is fraught with difficulties so use the argument "we don't take the
bible literally" as a defense of their biblical religious beliefs are really just cherry-picking which pas-
sages are to be taken literally and those that are to be taken figuratively.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 12/26/17 4:21pm

Dasein

luvsexy4all said:

so if a person were to live their life according to the teachings and philosophies of the bible (whether u believe them or not)...they'd be doomed according to some people on here....


Nobody in this thread said such a thing.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 12/26/17 4:24pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Ian, I really don't care about continuing this conversation with you. You think I was implicitly
saying agnosticism is superior to Freaky's theism; and you think I was immorally suggesting
that Freaky abandon God altogether.

You're wrong. But, you think you're right. Fucking move on!

.

I said two posts ago that "And we are spending far too much effort on this.", so I willing accept your repeating of my advice that we move on.


Great! I see that you want or need to pat yourself on the back for being the first to suggest that
we move on.

And, I want you to know that I purposefully did not read your post save its very last sentence, so
you actually wasted your time writing it!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 12/26/17 5:15pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

Christians who realize the bible is fraught with difficulties so use the argument "we don't take the
bible literally" as a defense of their biblical religious beliefs are really just cherry-picking which pas-
sages are to be taken literally and those that are to be taken figuratively.

.

That is cherry-picking based on maintaining knowledge through interactions with God, especially Jesus, structured religion, studying history, language, archaeology, psychology, sociology and other sciences (all with regular human miss-steps) to update and build on our knowledge where Christians understand the Bible, how it came to be over thousands of years, its structure and its purpose. Where Christians have inherited the knowledge of the Hewbrews before them who also clearly understood that this is a scriptural work that is meant in 4 senses - the literal sense, the allogorical sense, the moral sense and the anagogical sense.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 12/27/17 6:32am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

Christians who realize the bible is fraught with difficulties so use the argument "we don't take the
bible literally" as a defense of their biblical religious beliefs are really just cherry-picking which pas-
sages are to be taken literally and those that are to be taken figuratively.

.

That is cherry-picking based on maintaining knowledge through interactions with God, especially Jesus, structured religion, studying history, language, archaeology, psychology, sociology and other sciences (all with regular human miss-steps) to update and build on our knowledge where Christians understand the Bible, how it came to be over thousands of years, its structure and its purpose. Where Christians have inherited the knowledge of the Hewbrews before them who also clearly understood that this is a scriptural work that is meant in 4 senses - the literal sense, the allogorical sense, the moral sense and the anagogical sense.


Okay, but how do you determine which of those four senses ought to be employed while reading
the bible? And, how do you determine which of those four senses the author of the passage was
using in its composition?

There is no knowledge humans can point to definitively and say it is a result of interacting with
God. There is knowledge, however, that humans can point to definitively and say it is a result of
interacting with belief in God.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 12/27/17 8:07am

Graycap23

avatar

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

That is cherry-picking based on maintaining knowledge through interactions with God, especially Jesus, structured religion, studying history, language, archaeology, psychology, sociology and other sciences (all with regular human miss-steps) to update and build on our knowledge where Christians understand the Bible, how it came to be over thousands of years, its structure and its purpose. Where Christians have inherited the knowledge of the Hewbrews before them who also clearly understood that this is a scriptural work that is meant in 4 senses - the literal sense, the allogorical sense, the moral sense and the anagogical sense.


Okay, but how do you determine which of those four senses ought to be employed while reading
the bible? And, how do you determine which of those four senses the author of the passage was
using in its composition?

There is no knowledge humans can point to definitively and say it is a result of interacting with
God. There is knowledge, however, that humans can point to definitively and say it is a result of
interacting with belief in God.

Just turn OFF YOUR BRAIN........and it will all make sense.

FOOLS multiply when WISE Men & Women are silent.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 12/27/17 9:53am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

God gave us a perfect brain...

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Typical incoherent babble about the Bible--from the left.