Organized Christianity Becomes Even More Loathsome... [Archive]

olevetonahill

12/10/2010, 06:59 PM

This sounds reasonable to me.

The Sally Ann refuses to distribute the Twilight and Harry Potter toys because of their wizardry, vampire and werewolf content, said Capt. Pam Goodyear.

"The Salvation Army is based on Christian principles, so these things are not in line with those," said Goodyear.

But she said the charity delivers those toys to other agencies that then distribute them.

"They're distributed in another manner where parents can choose," she said, though she couldn't name any of those other agencies.

And she said it has been Sally Ann policy not to distribute war toys like plastic guns, though many of those decisions are made by the local ministry unit operating the warehouse.

Goodyear said the charity should inform donors which toys it chooses not to distribute.

rekamrettuB

12/10/2010, 07:01 PM

I applaud them. I too am tired of Harry Potter and Twilight.

Seriously tho I'm with ya. No need to throw away toys for the needy. That would be like tossing some bologna sandwiches for the homeless because they are vegetarians and think the homeless should be too.

SicEmBaylor

12/10/2010, 07:10 PM

Distributing the toys through other groups is still absolutely no excuse and in no way helps the situation. First of all, most people contribute via the Salvation Army because of its reputation. You can be reasonably sure that the Salvation Army isn't going to misuse the money or donations in any way -- you can be sure your contribution is going to go where it needs to go.

That's not true of a lot of local "charities" that may not be nearly as trustworthy. What other charities are they sending the toys to? I'd like to know what kind of reputation they have.

And, as the SA official stated, it's ultimately up to each individual chapter on how to deal with this kind of thing so many of the individual chapters may be throwing these toys out which I think is likely. If you have a theological beef with these toys being put into the hands of children, then what sense does it make to simply pass it on for someone else to distribute?

I personally doubt that these toys are going to get into the hands of children unless the SA does it themselves.

olevetonahill

12/10/2010, 07:14 PM

Lil Bro
This is The SA in Canada. Not all of em are this way .
Plus read what they said about passin em on to other groups. they do so and let the parents decide if they think its appropriate

usaosooner

12/10/2010, 07:18 PM

Looks like i'm not donating to SA this winter.. I'll send a check to some other group

oumartin

12/10/2010, 07:35 PM

bailing on someone in a time of need. I agree that is disgraceful.

olevetonahill

12/10/2010, 07:42 PM

Hell, If Yall gonna let a little toy cullin stop ya , then ya was just lookin fer an excuse any way
Keep yer ****in 10 dollars :rolleyes:

Leroy Lizard

12/10/2010, 07:49 PM

The Salvation Army is throwing out tons of Harry Potter and Twilight themed gifts for needy children. People out of the goodness of their hearts bought these toys with the belief that they would go to needy children who are in need this Christmas.

I'd like to feed whoever is in charge of the Salvation Army to some lions this holiday season.

The Salvation Army works pretty hard to help the needy, but because they refuse to handle certain items they are now evil? What do you think of those agencies that don't distribute any items to the needy? They're worse, right?

If you have a theological beef with these toys being put into the hands of children, then what sense does it make to simply pass it on for someone else to distribute?

You're right, here. The Salvation Army shouldn't accept these items in the first place. For some reason, I doubt that would satisfy you.

The Salvation Army is a great organization and you should be ashamed of yourself for criticizing them.

soonerinkaty

12/10/2010, 07:58 PM

http://www.phuckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/oh_hell_no_cat.jpg

SicEmBaylor

12/10/2010, 08:15 PM

The Salvation Army works pretty hard to help the needy, but because they refuse to handle certain items they are now evil? What do you think of those agencies that don't distribute any items to the needy? They're worse, right?

You're right, here. The Salvation Army shouldn't accept these items in the first place. For some reason, I doubt that would satisfy you.

The Salvation Army is a great organization and you should be ashamed of yourself for criticizing them.

Did I say they were evil? No.

I'm not sure what "agencies" that don't deliver to the needy have anything to do with what the hell we're talking about.

olevetonahill

12/10/2010, 08:17 PM

Did I say they were evil? No.

I'm not sure what "agencies" that don't deliver to the needy have anything to do with what the hell we're talking about.

Sic, its leroid, he talks out his *** about everything :rolleyes:

Blue

12/10/2010, 08:22 PM

The SA is pro choice right? That still doesnt stop me from doing the Angel Tree thing. Thats a great charity.

If you wanna give I'd find your local homeless shelter and give canned goods, clothes, toys, etc.. It'll go straight to the source and not into some secondhand store for a profit.

AlbqSooner

12/10/2010, 08:42 PM

First of all, most people contribute via the Salvation Army because of its reputation. You can be reasonably sure that the Salvation Army isn't going to misuse the money or donations in any way -- you can be sure your contribution is going to go where it needs to go.

I personally doubt that these toys are going to get into the hands of children unless the SA does it themselves.

If you contribute through the Salvation Ary because you can be reasonably sure your contribution is going to go where it needs to go, then you trust them to decide wisely where it needs to go. If their decision is that it needs to go to a charity which has no objection to distributing this type of contribution, then it has gone where it needed to go.

Sorry Sic, you are off base with this one.

Woud you object so strongly if someone had donated a Jewish Children's book to the SA and they decided that since it should not go from the Christian based SA, they would give it to the local Synagogue for them to distribute?

SicEmBaylor

12/10/2010, 08:58 PM

If you contribute through the Salvation Ary because you can be reasonably sure your contribution is going to go where it needs to go, then you trust them to decide wisely where it needs to go.
I'm not so sure. Like I said, I have my doubts they'd go to the trouble of simply distributing the toys via other organizations if they have that strong a theological objection to the material. HOWEVER, they can't totally be sure how another organization operates.

If their decision is that it needs to go to a charity which has no objection to distributing this type of contribution, then it has gone where it needed to go.
Maybe...maybe not. What if some local chapters simply decide to get rid of the donations entirely since it's evidently ultimately up to the local chapters.

Woud you object so strongly if someone had donated a Jewish Children's book to the SA and they decided that since it should not go from the Christian based SA, they would give it to the local Synagogue for them to distribute?

Yes I would, but at least in this case we'd know the book is actually going to a synagogue. I'd like to know what other charities the SA is using to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight donations. They don't say.

yermom

12/10/2010, 09:43 PM

the SA can suck it

hearing those incessant bells is just another reason i hate Christmas

OnlyOneOklahoma

12/10/2010, 09:51 PM

I kind of take the olevet approach.

The SA is gracious enough to accept the toys. As long as they are not literally throwing away toys, instead they are passing them on to less "idealogical" charities.

As long as the toy winds up in a child's lap for Christmas, and I get a receipt from the SA to write off as a deduction, who cares which charity actually distributes the toy?

OnlyOneOklahoma

12/10/2010, 09:57 PM

the SA can suck it

hearing those incessant bells is just another reason i hate Christmas

Fo sho.

There is a bell ringer outside of Byron's liquor warehouse but not all the entrances to Wal-Mart or Penn Square Mall.

TitoMorelli

12/10/2010, 10:15 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/10/2010, 10:34 PM

Did I say they were evil? No.

Well, you said "even more loathsome" which implies a huge truckload of loath.

I'm not sure what "agencies" that don't deliver to the needy have anything to do with what the hell we're talking about.

IOW, give them the credit for what they do and quit nitpicking them. Do you think the poor would be a better off without them?

AlboSooner

12/10/2010, 11:00 PM

I demand that the Christian prime minister be held accountable for this shameful act done by his army.

bluedogok

12/10/2010, 11:10 PM

My wife has worked for non-profit charities for about 18 years, most "national charities" are not charities, they exist to maintain a national marketing presence and pay the leaders not unlike unions. They have a national organization but the majority are local chapters with pretty much a franchise agreement with whomever they are affiliated with. The one my wife worked for they received no funds from national but had to pay their fees to national. For many of the large charities the only money that "goes to work" is money donated to the local charity, not the money donated during the national telethon. Not all work this way but the majority do.

Most of the toy charities do distribute everything, they aren't taking stuff home or reselling it in the thrift stores. Most of the local ones around here are run by law enforcement agencies, I know several who work with them on Toy Run motorcycle rides.

olevetonahill

12/10/2010, 11:12 PM

I'm not so sure. Like I said, I have my doubts they'd go to the trouble of simply distributing the toys via other organizations if they have that strong a theological objection to the material. HOWEVER, they can't totally be sure how another organization operates.

Maybe...maybe not. What if some local chapters simply decide to get rid of the donations entirely since it's evidently ultimately up to the local chapters.

Yes I would, but at least in this case we'd know the book is actually going to a synagogue. I'd like to know what other charities the SA is using to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight donations. They don't say.

Sic You Dumas. this is a small group in Canuck land. Its Not the Entire SA .
**** if ya dont like it Keep yer pennies :rolleyes:

olevetonahill

12/10/2010, 11:16 PM

Sic and you others . Yall are sounding like the WBC bunch :rolleyes:

47straight

12/11/2010, 11:50 AM

Wow, I'm shocked. I felt for sure that Sic'Em would have been saying that it's nobody's business but theirs how they want to help people out.

I mean, according to Sic'Em it's wrong for us to criticize the Clintons for spending tens of thousands of a wedding cake for Chelsea.

I still can't figure out why someone should give a **** what someone else does with their money.

My grandmother is a classic Roosevelt Democrat. The woman oozes liberalism. And she is constantly going around bitching about what the wealthy do with their money -- why the **** is it her business? Why does she really care? The poor woman is eaten alive with class envy and she can't ever seem to let it go.

I've never in my life been mad, indignant, resentful, or jealous of someone because of what they had or what they chose to spend their money on.

I say, good for the Clintons. I'm thrilled they live in a country where they've been able to accumulate wealth based on their individual efforts.

Having conservatives bitch about how someone spends their private money is blatant hypocrisy and it disgusts me.

Or is this situation totally different, because you don't like religion whereas you're a closet Clinton democrat?

MR2-Sooner86

12/11/2010, 01:30 PM

Do people even read what's posted?

The policy has alarmed a Calgarian who volunteered to sift through a southeast warehouse full of unused, donated items and was alarmed when he was told by Salvation Army officials that the two kinds of toys are "disposed of" and not given to other charities.

"I asked if these toys went to another charitable organizations but was told no, that by passing these toys on to another agency for distribution would be supporting these toys," said the man, who wouldn't give his name due to his occupation.

"The Salvation Army is based on Christian principles, so these things are not in line with those," said Goodyear.

But she said the charity delivers those toys to other agencies that then distribute them.

Alright, so who's bull****ting? Where are they really going?

I'd like to know where the SA's stance is on...

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings toys.

StoopTroup

12/11/2010, 01:35 PM

Once the tax laws don't include the ability to write off Charitable donations many of these agencies will more than likely accept Donations from Satan himself is my guess.

SicEmBaylor

12/11/2010, 01:43 PM

Wow, I'm shocked. I felt for sure that Sic'Em would have been saying that it's nobody's business but theirs how they want to help people out.

I mean, according to Sic'Em it's wrong for us to criticize the Clintons for spending tens of thousands of a wedding cake for Chelsea.

Or is this situation totally different, because you don't like religion whereas you're a closet Clinton democrat?

It's different because this is a charitable organization whose purpose is to take money or goods and distribute them. I never said that the SA doesn't have the RIGHT to accept and distribute whatever they want (or don't want). But, I question their judgement in doing so.

People donate to the SA because of their reputation. You can be sure there isn't a lot of "graft" up top. There's less trust involved with these other nameless charitable organizations that the SA is evidently partnering with to distribute these donations.

Again, they have every right to do so, but this is a different situation. I just think it's a horrible idea and hurts the trust people have in the SA.

47straight

12/11/2010, 05:25 PM

It's different because this is a charitable organization whose purpose is to take money or goods and distribute them. I never said that the SA doesn't have the RIGHT to accept and distribute whatever they want (or don't want). But, I question their judgement in doing so.

People donate to the SA because of their reputation. You can be sure there isn't a lot of "graft" up top. There's less trust involved with these other nameless charitable organizations that the SA is evidently partnering with to distribute these donations.

Again, they have every right to do so, but this is a different situation. I just think it's a horrible idea and hurts the trust people have in the SA.

Some of us questioned the judgment of the Clintons because of how they conducted their affairs and spent their money. That disgusted you. You even threw out the term hypocrite.

Leroy Lizard

12/11/2010, 06:18 PM

Some of us questioned the judgment of the Clintons because of how they conducted their affairs and spent their money. That disgusted you. You even threw out the term hypocrite.

I see no resemblance between the two issues.

2121Sooner

12/11/2010, 06:55 PM

SicEm is just upset that the Christmas tree wont have a "Team Jacob" t-shirt under it this year.

miryte?!?!?!

C&CDean

12/11/2010, 07:39 PM

I'd like to know where the SA's stance is on...

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings toys.

They think they suck, and they do. HP > Star Wars by a mile. DOH.

This is one subject y'all can get me all riled up about. My mother has worked for the SA for the past 40-something years feeding the homeless POS in soup kitchens, ministering in prisons all over Arizona, providing meals/furniture/housing/rehab/etc. to thousands upon thousands of folks. I have seen her spit on (I went to the slammer that night), and she has been assaulted so many times she's lost count.

Here's what I can tell you about the SA:

The Red Cross takes all the glory for making lukewarm coffee when there's a disaster. The SA goes into the guts of the deal and helps the people who are hurting. They're the hardest working bunch of do-gooders in the world. Period.

So, you wanna bitch cause they took a couple of HP toys or Twilight toys and didn't distribute them? **** you. They do so much good in the world who GAS about what they think about Star Wars, HP, Twilight, or whoever?

How about you go donate your money to the baby-killing machines like Planned Parenthood Mkaay? While your charities are ripping lives out of teenage wombs, the SA is feeding/helping people who are truly in need.

Sicem, you're way off-based on this one dude. Besides, they're canucks.

yermom

12/11/2010, 07:41 PM

Harry Potter couldn't hold Luke Skywalker's jock

GKeeper316

12/11/2010, 07:46 PM

Harry Potter couldn't hold Luke Skywalker's jock

ya!

C&CDean

12/11/2010, 07:55 PM

Harry Potter couldn't hold Luke Skywalker's jock

Dumbledore would smoke Darth Vader for lunch. Literally.

I went and watched the Deathly Hallows Part 1 this afternoon up here in Alexandria, VA. If you hadn't read the books, you'd be SOL, but overall, I thought it was a pretty good flick. So did most of the folks in the theater. I thought it'd be me, and a couple of pervs jacking off. Nope. The theater was probably 5/6ths full.

GKeeper316

12/11/2010, 08:06 PM

Dumbledore would smoke Darth Vader for lunch. Literally.

would not!

yermom

12/11/2010, 08:12 PM

Dumbledore would smoke Darth Vader for lunch. Literally.

I went and watched the Deathly Hallows Part 1 this afternoon up here in Alexandria, VA. If you hadn't read the books, you'd be SOL, but overall, I thought it was a pretty good flick. So did most of the folks in the theater. I thought it'd be me, and a couple of pervs jacking off. Nope. The theater was probably 5/6ths full.

Vader likes chicks.

i saw the last movie, it's pretty good

still, nothing has really come close to what Star Wars was to kids my age. Lord of the Rings was almost there

C&CDean

12/11/2010, 08:14 PM

Dude, Dumbledore's a fag. Yes. He. Would. Besides, he owns the Elder Wand, and what's more powerful, a unbeatable wand, or some bad lungs?

C&CDean

12/11/2010, 08:15 PM

Vader likes chicks.

i saw the last movie, it's pretty good

still, nothing has really come close to what Star Wars was to kids my age. Lord of the Rings was almost there

Don't kid yourself, Vader likes to smoke the pole too. Why do you think his voice is all ****ed up? That's right, quid.

GKeeper316

12/11/2010, 08:30 PM

Dude, Dumbledore's a fag. Yes. He. Would. Besides, he owns the Elder Wand, and what's more powerful, a unbeatable wand, or some bad lungs?

vader had a death star. let's see dumbledore stop that ****.

TitoMorelli

12/11/2010, 08:34 PM

I'm pretty new here. Is Traber really the board administrator? :confused:

GKeeper316

12/11/2010, 08:35 PM

I'm pretty new here. Is Traber really the board administrator? :confused:

/sigh...

ya :(

C&CDean

12/11/2010, 10:02 PM

sigh- yes, I suppose so - sigh

WTF is Traber?

BigJerm7

12/11/2010, 10:31 PM

Don't lump all "organized Christianity" in with the SA. We all interpret the Bible differently.

SouthCarolinaSooner

12/11/2010, 11:08 PM

Honestly, I never understood the Christian stigma against Harry Potter :confused:

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 05:06 AM

Honestly, I never understood the Christian stigma against Harry Potter :confused:

I think our suspicions are raised any time something becomes ridiculously popular among kids. We figure that if the kids are that absorbed in it, then something (possibly evil) must be drawing them in.

That gets the suspicions going, and then at that point it isn't hard to find things to confirm them.

Basic human nature that affects us all.

yermom

12/12/2010, 12:43 PM

that's much worse that saying he's a ****ing wizard that does ****ing magic

SicEmBaylor

12/12/2010, 01:47 PM

that's much worse that saying he's a ****ing wizard that does ****ing magic

I need to learn me some ****ing magic. I mean, my ****ing is pretty good but it certainly isn't magical. :D

MR2-Sooner86

12/12/2010, 02:03 PM

Honestly, I never understood the Christian stigma against Harry Potter :confused:

It's bull**** reasons but what else do you expect?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/harrypotter.html

The “good” guys practice “white magic”, while the bad guys practice the “Dark Arts”. Readers become fascinated with the magic used (explained in remarkable detail). Yet God is clear in Scripture that any practice of magic is an “abomination” to him. God doesn’t distinguish between “white” and “dark” magic since they both originate from the same source.

“There shall not be found among you anyone who …practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you.”
Deut. 18:10-14

The problem is, witchcraft is not fantasy; it is a sinful reality in our world.

“J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has gone through an awful lot of research. She is very accurate (otherwise we would have witches all over the country and the world saying ‘this is not a true representation of our religion.’) This is a true representation of witchcraft, and the black arts, and black magic. And yet we have people that say this is merely fantasy and harmless reading for our children. Actually, what makes this more dangerous is that it is couched in fantasy language, and children’s literature, and made to be humorous, and beautifully written and extremely provocative reading. and it just opens up children to want to have the next one. This is what is so harmful.”

The Christian Booksellers Association’s 13,000 member annual meeting in 2000 had a noticeable lack of anything Potter.

Clara Sessoms, who manages Living Water Christian Books in Marion, Ind. says ‘I don’t think people fully realize what they’re dealing with, and I think anyone who knows anything about spiritual warfare knows those books can open the door to spiritual bondage.’ ‘And I think it’s worse that children are the target,’ said Jessica Ruemler, a buyer for Living Water. ‘It opens the doors for young minds. You put sorcery in, what do you expect to get out?’

Author John Andrew Murray believes that…

“With the growing popularity of youth-oriented TV shows on witchcraft—‘Sabrina, the Teenage Witch;’ ‘Charmed;’ ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’—a generation of children is becoming desensitized to the occult. But with Hollywood’s help, Harry Potter will likely surpass all these influences, potentially reaping some grave spiritual consequences.”

What a bunch of choads.

OutlandTrophy

12/12/2010, 02:40 PM

It's been my experience that those that bitch the most about charities, give the least.

I could be wrong here and if i am, I apologize.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 03:25 PM

that's much worse that saying he's a ****ing wizard that does ****ing magic

:confused:

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 03:29 PM

I dunno, MR2. The following is pretty rational if you adhere to the Christian faith:

The “good” guys practice “white magic”, while the bad guys practice the “Dark Arts”. Readers become fascinated with the magic used (explained in remarkable detail). Yet God is clear in Scripture that any practice of magic is an “abomination” to him. God doesn’t distinguish between “white” and “dark” magic since they both originate from the same source.

“There shall not be found among you anyone who …practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you.”
Deut. 18:10-14

I don't read Harry Potter, so I don't know if their representation is accurate. But if so, it looks like they have good reasons for avoiding the books.

yermom

12/12/2010, 03:37 PM

:confused:

you said anything that a bunch of kids like is likely evil for some reason

that seems a bit paranoid, don't you think?

i can accept denouncing Harry Potter because it's about little kids practicing magic, but just because it's popular seems pretty lame

but i guess i never hear them complaining about Lord of the Rings either, so how knows?

MR2-Sooner86

12/12/2010, 03:54 PM

I dunno, MR2. The following is pretty rational if you adhere to the Christian faith.

I don't read Harry Potter, so I don't know if their representation is accurate. But if so, it looks like they have good reasons for avoiding the books.

See, here's what I don't like, they're ****ing cherry picking (like they always do) what they don't like.

In Deuteronomy, same book that verse is, we find this one.

Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. Deuteronomy 22:11

So should clothes that have wool and linen in them should obviously be rejected. I mean it's there in black and white not to do it.

SouthCarolinaSooner

12/12/2010, 06:34 PM

I dunno, MR2. The following is pretty rational if you adhere to the Christian faith:

I don't read Harry Potter, so I don't know if their representation is accurate. But if so, it looks like they have good reasons for avoiding the books.
Except for, I don't know, it's a ****ing book. No one is practicing witchcraft.

SicEmBaylor

12/12/2010, 07:17 PM

Except for, I don't know, it's a ****ing book. No one is practicing witchcraft.

This is like the wikileaks hysteria. Lots of people claiming what is happening but very few examples of it actually happening.

Please, show me one kid who grew up reading Harry Potter books and is now a virgin-sacrificing sadist.

Seriously. Harry Potter? Christo.

2121Sooner

12/12/2010, 08:28 PM

There are a lot of things to complain and get upset about. This isn't one of them.

tommieharris91

12/12/2010, 08:35 PM

See, here's what I don't like, they're ****ing cherry picking (like they always do) what they don't like.

In Deuteronomy, same book that verse is, we find this one.

So should clothes that have wool and linen in them should obviously be rejected. I mean it's there in black and white not to do it.

The Westboro Baptists cite Deuteronomy a lot. So did Hitler.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:10 PM

you said anything that a bunch of kids like is likely evil for some reason

that seems a bit paranoid, don't you think?

How do you go from "raises suspicions" to "likely evil"?

As for being paranoid, we are all like that. Every one of us.

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:13 PM

As for being paranoid, we are all like that. Every one of us.

That is untrue.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:18 PM

Except for, I don't know, it's a ****ing book. No one is practicing witchcraft.

You don't have to agree with their reasoning, but it's sound. God commands people not to practice witchcraft. Here is a popular children's book that has the heroes practicing witchcraft.... yeah, I can see why they want children not to read the book. Sounds logical enough.

Now, if you belong to the "What We Read Cannot Influence Us" crowd, I see your point. But then you would have a hard time complaining about book burnings, because if ideas cannot influence us then book burnings are largely harmless. And the whole "pen is mightier than the sword" idea gets thrown out.

Please, show me one kid who grew up reading Harry Potter books and is now a virgin-sacrificing sadist.

Millions have read the book. I am sure there are plenty of people who turned out pretty rotten that had the book.

Whether the book was to blame is another matter.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:21 PM

See, here's what I don't like, they're ****ing cherry picking (like they always do) what they don't like.

The passage is clear.

Now, if there were passages in the Bible that supported the practice of witchcraft, you might have a point.

The Westboro Baptists cite Deuteronomy a lot. So did Hitler.

Which passages did Hitler ever quote? Just curious.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:23 PM

That is untrue.

You obviously don't understand human nature.

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:24 PM

You obviously don't understand human nature.You have no idea what you're taking about.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:25 PM

You have no idea what you're taking about.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a robot.

tommieharris91

12/12/2010, 10:26 PM

Which passages did Hitler ever quote? Just curious.

http://www.iill.net/wp-content/uploads/images/fish-hooks.jpg

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:27 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a robot.Funny. Doesn't change the fact that you're speaking untruths.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:30 PM

Funny. Doesn't change the fact that you're speaking untruths.

If you want to believe you are exempt from the failings of human nature, fine.

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:32 PM

If you want to believe you are exempt from the failings of human nature, fine.No one is exempt from failings. Many do not have paranoia as their failing.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:35 PM

No one is exempt from failings. Many do not have paranoia as their failing.

This isn't paranoia we're talking about.

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:40 PM

What?

As for being paranoid, we are all like that. Every one of us.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:43 PM

What?

IOW, the use of the term paranoid isn't really accurate here. It wasn't my term, but one o the other posters'. These are people who are maybe overly concerned about an influence something has on their kids. Maybe even their concerns are unfounded. But that is hardly unusual.

I should have put the word "paranoid" in quotes.

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:46 PM

So you're speaking of people who are, let's say, "anxious" or "worriers". Even using quotes, it's still not true that "we are all like that".

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 10:51 PM

So you're speaking of people who are, let's say, "anxious" or "worriers". Even using quotes, it's still not true that "we are all like that".

Sure we are.

A bunch of Republicans are sponsoring a bill. There isn't a Democrat on the planet that wouldn't get suspicious of their motives. And when reading the bill, they will be on the lookout for anything that would explain why their opposition is so much in favor and will often get completely carried away with their suspicions.

Sports fans see all the great players signing on with the enemy team. Why? What's the attraction? They see one of the recruits driving a brand new car. "A ha!!!! They're paying the players!"

That's just the way people are. Well, except you, of course.

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 10:52 PM

Sure we are.

A bunch of Republicans are sponsoring a bill. There isn't a Democrat on the planet that wouldn't get suspicious of their motives. And when reading the bill, they will be on the lookout for anything that would explain why their opposition is so much in favor and will often get completely carried away with their suspicions.

Sports fans see all the great players signing on with the enemy team. Why? What's the attraction? They see one of the recruits driving a brand new car. "A ha!!!! They're paying the players!"

That's just the way people are. Well, except you, of course.This isn't about me, as much as you seem to want to make it so. It's about you just being flat-out incorrect.

yermom

12/12/2010, 10:58 PM

How do you go from "raises suspicions" to "likely evil"?

As for being paranoid, we are all like that. Every one of us.

I think our suspicions are raised any time something becomes ridiculously popular among kids. We figure that if the kids are that absorbed in it, then something (possibly evil) must be drawing them in.

That gets the suspicions going, and then at that point it isn't hard to find things to confirm them.

Basic human nature that affects us all.

of course, these are the same people that dress up like a fictional character with magical powers every year to raise money

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 11:00 PM

This isn't about me, as much as you seem to want to make it so. It's about you just being flat-out incorrect.

Just telling someone that they're wrong isn't much of an argument. It's on the level of "Oh, yeah!?!? Yeah!! Oh, yeah!?!? Yeah!!" :rolleyes:

yermom

12/12/2010, 11:02 PM

yeah.

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 11:03 PM

We figure that if the kids are that absorbed in it, then something (possibly evil) must be drawing them in.

Notice I said "possibly." You turned that into "likely."

of course, these are the same people that dress up like a fictional character with magical powers every year to raise money

:confused:

MR2-Sooner86

12/12/2010, 11:04 PM

God commands people not to practice witchcraft.

The passage is clear.

Now, if there were passages in the Bible that supported the practice of witchcraft, you might have a point.

There are passages that command you to stone your children when they don't behave, kill homosexuals, and for a woman to marry her rapist but we dont' follow those now do we? Again, it's simple cherry picking of what sounds alright and what doesn't.

2121Sooner

12/12/2010, 11:06 PM

That is untrue.

Doesnt your lack of paranoia make you just a LITTLE paranoid?

Just sayin....

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 11:10 PM

Just telling someone that they're wrong isn't much of an argument. It's on the level of "Oh, yeah!?!? Yeah!! Oh, yeah!?!? Yeah!!" :rolleyes:And making statements as if they're fact don't make them fact.

Doesnt your lack of paranoia make you just a LITTLE paranoid?

Just sayin....
Who said I wasn't paranoid?

Leroy Lizard

12/12/2010, 11:10 PM

There are passages that command you to stone your children when they don't behave, kill homosexuals, and for a woman to marry her rapist but we dont' follow those now do we?

OMG, we have discussed these passages a million times in here. So once again, those passages are not designed to establish a code of punishment for eternity. They were commandments to specific people at that time and reflect punishments common at that time.

But when God says that witchcraft is an abomination, He is detailing exactly His view of this practice.

Context is everything.

yermom

12/12/2010, 11:12 PM

Notice I said "possibly." You turned that into "likely."

:confused:

ok, but i wasn't making up "evil"

and Santa has done more magic than Harry Potter could ever dream of :D

2121Sooner

12/12/2010, 11:13 PM

Who said I wasn't paranoid?

Who said I said you werent paranoid?

Man, you and your robot counterpart...........have issues

3rdgensooner

12/12/2010, 11:14 PM

Who said I said you werent paranoid?

Man, you and your robot counterpart...........have issuesSaid the kettle.

Thaumaturge

12/12/2010, 11:41 PM

Harry Potter is even more Christ-like than any real life Christ-like Christian I've ever met. That's why I know God loves Harry Potter.

By their fruits shall you know them, I always say.

adoniijahsooner

12/12/2010, 11:50 PM

Harry Potter is even more Christ-like than any real life Christ-like Christian I've ever met. That's why I know God loves Harry Potter.

By their fruits shall you know them, I always say.

So you have met Harry Potter in the flesh? He was more Christ-like than every Christian in the world; I highly doubt it. You should have followed him home and looked in his window to see if him and Ron were bumping uglies while Hermoine watched. I am sure him being a wizard means he at least has a few skulls in his closet.

MR2-Sooner86

12/12/2010, 11:51 PM

OMG, we have discussed these passages a million times in here. So once again, those passages are not designed to establish a code of punishment for eternity. They were commandments to specific people at that time and reflect punishments common at that time.

But when God says that witchcraft is an abomination, He is detailing exactly His view of this practice.

Context is everything.

1ytCEuuW2_A

Hmmm so the commandments and punishments were for the people at that time. So saying, "witchcraft is bad and anybody who practices it should be dead" was alright back then and is ok now but we just don't kill them? Got ya.

What about these?
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him. 1 Corinthians 11:14

A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 22:5

Awesome, so any 80's metal rock band and fans of Rocky Horror Picture show are the same as witches and warlocks. Or is it all about the "context" of things?

You're pissing in your own bath water. Using the "context" argument here is about as usefully as a year's supply of birth control pills for a Catholic priest.

adoniijahsooner

12/13/2010, 12:02 AM

A rational view is there are many parents who would never allow harry potter and twilight into their homes; so the SA says, "lets not offend these parents, and send out toys that will not cause problems in any home." What is wrong with that? If I cook dinner, and I know that half the guests do not eat pork, wouldnt it be reasonable to just cook chicken, so everyone can be fed with no problem? Or should I say, "these ungrateful bastards are going to have to eat this smoked ham, or find somewhere else to eat!"

Just maybe the SA doesnt want to shove hp and twilight down everyones throat.

olevetonahill

12/13/2010, 12:28 AM

How do you go from "raises suspicions" to "likely evil"?

As for being paranoid, we are all like that. Every one of us.

Just cause Leroid is paranoid dont mean some aint out to get him . :D

SouthCarolinaSooner

12/13/2010, 12:49 AM

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 12:52 AM

1ytCEuuW2_A

Hmmm so the commandments and punishments were for the people at that time. So saying, "witchcraft is bad and anybody who practices it should be dead" was alright back then and is ok now but we just don't kill them? Got ya.

God didn't say that, at least that isn't what was posted.

Again, context is everything. What you have found is some web site that has compiled a list of what it considers outrageous Biblical passages. They're all over the place. But the people who create them only have a shallow understanding of what these things mean. "Look here! This one commands us to not eat shrimp!" No, not really.

Now, if you really want to answer your own questions, you will need to do some serious study.

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 12:53 AM

So how about the context of practicing witchcraft as a "religion" (common in those days) as to the context of reading a book about some kids casting spells in the 21st century? I just don't think witchcraft is the threat to Christianity now that it was then, so that should be taken into context, right?

God doesn't care what you think.

MR2-Sooner86

12/13/2010, 01:24 AM

What you have found is some web site that has compiled a list of what it considers outrageous Biblical passages. They're all over the place. But the people who create them only have a shallow understanding of what these things mean. "Look here! This one commands us to not eat shrimp!" No, not really.

Now, if you really want to answer your own questions, you will need to do some serious study.

I didn't go to any sites. I read the book myself. No out of context, that's what god said to the people when laying down the "law" of the land. In one verse he's telling you to kill witches and in the next you cut your hair a certain way. You see, god doesn't like getting into that technical stuff like explaining things. He works in "mysterious" ways ya know :pop:

yermom

12/13/2010, 01:27 AM

God doesn't care what you think.

from what i can tell he doesn't care about much if he does exist

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 02:39 AM

from what i can tell he doesn't care about much if he does exist

That's our problem, not His.

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 02:40 AM

I didn't go to any sites. I read the book myself.

Just not very carefully.

OhU1

12/13/2010, 10:39 AM

JohnnyMack

12/13/2010, 11:16 AM

I finally figured out who Leroy reminds me of.

You should seriously make this your avatar:

http://blstb.msn.com/i/85/7CC4D5B7B79C384D92CCD870A5458.jpg

yermom

12/13/2010, 11:17 AM

heh.

olevetonahill

12/13/2010, 11:23 AM

Who the hell is it?

yermom

12/13/2010, 11:26 AM

the IRS prohibition dude from Boardwalk Empire

i don't think you'd like him either :D

olevetonahill

12/13/2010, 11:28 AM

the IRS prohibition dude from Boardwalk Empire

i don't think you'd like him either :D

Ok , Is that a movie er sompun ?
If its Gov. hack i prolly wouldnt :D

yermom

12/13/2010, 11:30 AM

HBO series, kinda like the new Sopranos

olevetonahill

12/13/2010, 11:36 AM

HBO series, kinda like the new Sopranos

Aw I see, I dont watch much TeeVee, and Caint remember the last time i had HBO .

JohnnyMack

12/13/2010, 11:53 AM

Who the hell is it?

meG-qlL7RdY

47straight

12/13/2010, 12:11 PM

IB4OU2

12/13/2010, 12:24 PM

the SA can suck it

hearing those incessant bells is just another reason i hate Christmas

"Everytime a bell rings an Angel gets its wings"

Your gonna **** off an Angel D...:D

olevetonahill

12/13/2010, 12:29 PM

"Everytime a bell rings an Angel gets its wings"

Your gonna **** off an Angel D...:D

:D

Sooner_Bob

12/13/2010, 01:19 PM

I finally figured out who Leroy reminds me of.

You should seriously make this your avatar:

http://blstb.msn.com/i/85/7CC4D5B7B79C384D92CCD870A5458.jpg

He banged the heck outta that one chick a few episodes ago . . . I figured that would lighten the character up a bit.

OklahomaTuba

12/13/2010, 02:40 PM

Does this book strike you as something the all knowing creator of the universe would write (or inspire)? :pop:The mere fact were sitting here still talking about a book that's thousands of years old from a bunch of illiterate goat herders would seem to help confirm this. For me at least. ;)

JohnnyMack

12/13/2010, 03:08 PM

The mere fact were sitting here still talking about a book that's thousands of years old from a bunch of illiterate goat herders would seem to help confirm this. For me at least. ;)

Whelp. It's old. It must be important.

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 03:21 PM

There is nothing intrinsically complicated about the bible. It is essentially a compilation founded on oral stories passed down by ancient illiterate desert goat herders. The problems, contradictions, and absurdities are there for anyone to read and are also well noted by many who have "seriously studied" it. The material is considered "complicated" by those who insist that the bible makes any rational sense in the 21st century.

The Bible is far more sophisticated than the average book.

And the passages are far beyond the abilities of the average illiterate goat herder. Even the high school graduate at the local gas station wouldn't be able to craft anything comparable. In fact, can you name anyone, regardless of their education, that could write a series of books on that level of sophistication and influence?

Think about the magnitude of work that went into creating the documents at that time. Couple that with the inspiration needed to even begin the writing process and the impact it has had worldwide. Clearly this is not just Harry Potter.

Apologists and theologians want you to believe their particular spin and rationalization is the revealed truth. That you have to have some kind of special mystical mind power and years of study to understand the canonized myths. Please don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining.

My advice is to read the bible from the very start, read it with an open skeptically inquiring mind and then draw your own conclusions. Does this book strike you as something the all knowing creator of the universe would write (or inspire)? :pop:

The Bible is vast and requires hundreds of hours of reading just for the New Testament alone. No one is going to devote that kind of time to reading a book unless they are inspired.

Giving advice to non-Christians on reading the Bible is like giving advice on reading Newton's Principia to non-scientists. What's the point? Without genuine inspiration, the reading task becomes a chore; no one is going to devote that much effort to completing it.

If there is one thing all Bible bashers have in common is their claim that they have actually read the Bible. No, unless they are just happening to complete doctoral work in theology, they got their passages from the Internet. Of that I am pretty certain.

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 03:23 PM

Whelp. It's old. It must be important.

You cannot deny its influence. Name me one person today that could outdo these goat herders in creating a manuscript so influential. The closest I can think of is Karl Marx, and even his writing has lost its staying power after only about 100 years. (And thank goodness for that.)

yermom

12/13/2010, 03:30 PM

so an old book being influential is significant somehow in validity?

that other book written by a goat herder seems to have quite a following...

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 03:36 PM

so an old book being influential is significant somehow in validity?

that other book written by a goat herder seems to have quite a following...

It doesn't make it valid but obviously you can't cast it off as "just a bunch of stories." Obviously there must be more to reading the Bible than just reading War and Peace.

Fraggle145

12/13/2010, 03:36 PM

You cannot deny its influence. Name me one person today that could outdo these goat herders in creating a manuscript so influential. The closest I can think of is Karl Marx, and even his writing has lost its staying power after only about 100 years. (And thank goodness for that.)

Just because something is influential (and I'm not necessarily talking about the bible here) doesnt mean it is a good thing.

Jammin'

12/13/2010, 03:40 PM

It doesn't make it valid but obviously you can't cast it off as "just a bunch of stories." Obviously there must be more to reading the Bible than just reading War and Peace.

Why not? I mean, these people had to try to explain the world around them somehow. Blaming an earthquake or drought on God is easier than trying to understand mother earth.

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 03:41 PM

Just because something is influential (and I'm not necessarily talking about the bible here) doesnt mean it is a good thing.

That's not the point. People in here are casting the Bible off as just another collection of stories written by goof-offs, and that the comprehending the true meaning of the Bible is akin to reading Catcher in the Rye. Give me a break.

Fraggle145

12/13/2010, 03:42 PM

OMG, we have discussed these passages a million times in here. So once again, those passages are not designed to establish a code of punishment for eternity. They were commandments to specific people at that time and reflect punishments common at that time.

But when God says that witchcraft is an abomination, He is detailing exactly His view of this practice.

Context is everything.

And where did God say that? or did someone write that? I'm confused? :confused:

God didn't say that, at least that isn't what was posted.

Again, context is everything. What you have found is some web site that has compiled a list of what it considers outrageous Biblical passages. They're all over the place. But the people who create them only have a shallow understanding of what these things mean. "Look here! This one commands us to not eat shrimp!" No, not really.

Now, if you really want to answer your own questions, you will need to do some serious study.

So which is it?

JohnnyMack

12/13/2010, 03:43 PM

You cannot deny its influence. Name me one person today that could outdo these goat herders in creating a manuscript so influential. The closest I can think of is Karl Marx, and even his writing has lost its staying power after only about 100 years. (And thank goodness for that.)

Why don't you be a man and change your avatar?

I'll spek you back to green if you do!

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 03:43 PM

Why not? I mean, these people had to try to explain the world around them somehow. Blaming an earthquake or drought on God is easier than trying to understand mother earth.

It's still widely read and believed today, and by a lot of people who don't blame earthquakes on God.

Fraggle145

12/13/2010, 03:44 PM

That's not the point. People in here are casting the Bible off as just another collection of stories written by goof-offs, and that the comprehending the true meaning of the Bible is akin to reading Catcher in the Rye. Give me a break.

No. Its just not the point you are trying to make.

Jammin'

12/13/2010, 03:55 PM

It's still widely read and believed today, and by a lot of people who don't blame earthquakes on God.

It's comforting to think there's a loving God that will make an eternity for our repenting souls to enjoy, isn't it?

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 03:57 PM

It's comforting to think there's a loving God that will make an eternity for our repenting souls to enjoy, isn't it?

Yes it is.

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 04:00 PM

No. Its just not the point you are trying to make.

Who's trying to prove the existence of God? This thread is about (1) understanding why Christians oppose Harry Potter and (2) arguing over whether the Bible needs careful reading to fully appreciate and comprehend.

MR2-Sooner86

12/13/2010, 04:02 PM

The Bible is far more sophisticated than the average book.

And the passages are far beyond the abilities of the average illiterate goat herder. Even the high school graduate at the local gas station wouldn't be able to craft anything comparable.

Translation

"God wrote it so it's waaaaay above your mind! You're just not awesome enough to know the awesomeness of God!"

In fact, can you name anyone, regardless of their education, that could write a series of books on that level of sophistication and influence?

J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, Steven King, Frank Herbert, George Orwell, C. S. Lewis, etc. What do I win?

I mean hell, L. Ron Hubbard came up with his own religion and it has 747 spaceships. Where's that in the Bible?

Think about the magnitude of work that went into creating the documents at that time. Couple that with the inspiration needed to even begin the writing process and the impact it has had worldwide. Clearly this is not just Harry Potter.

Yeah, kind of like every other civilization that had stories and laws explaining how the universe worked like...the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, Chinese, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.

The Bible is vast and requires hundreds of hours of reading just for the New Testament alone. No one is going to devote that kind of time to reading a book unless they are inspired.

Why when you can have the cliff notes.

We have heave, earth, and people.
Woman ****s it up.
Two white people **** and now we have all sorts of brown, black, and yellow people.
Filler...
God angry! Flood!
A small *** boat carries everything.
Filler...
Filler...
Let my people go!
God kills children to make a point.
Filler....
Filler...
Filler...
Dude and his slingshot
Filler....
Filler...
Jesus dude
Filler...
Judas you dick!
Jesus dead.
Filler...
Bible Wars Episode 6 Return of the Jesus!
Filler...
Filler...
Oh yeah, accept that the dude died and raised again and you'll go to heaven even though there's millions of people who don't know that so...if you don't, you'll have company in hell
Filler...
Filler...
Filler...
TEH EARTH IZ GONNA TO BLOWZ UP!!1!!!
The End

Giving advice to non-Christians on reading the Bible is like giving advice on reading Newton's Principia to non-scientists. What's the point? Without genuine inspiration, the reading task becomes a chore; no one is going to devote that much effort to completing it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-US-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers.-Is-that-bad
Damn you Christian Science Monitor and ****ing up a good argument!!!

If there is one thing all Bible bashers have in common is their claim that they have actually read the Bible. No, unless they are just happening to complete doctoral work in theology, they got their passages from the Internet. Of that I am pretty certain.

Yup, that Bible I have right in front of me is a figment of my imagination. How the **** did it get there!?

Jammin'

12/13/2010, 04:05 PM

MR2, if you say your sorry right before you die your soul will be okay and might still get in on those virgins. Feel better now?

The

12/13/2010, 04:06 PM

This thread reads like a bunch of nerds talking about Star Wars.

Jammin'

12/13/2010, 04:08 PM

This thread reads like a bunch of nerds talking about Star Wars.

Pffft, you can't possibly understand the complexities of Star Wars. You've probably never even seen episode II.

3rdgensooner

12/13/2010, 04:09 PM

This thread reads like a bunch of nerds talking about Star Wars.You got here just in time then.

The

12/13/2010, 04:10 PM

You got here just in time then.

Han shot first.

/What's wrong with your face?????

GKeeper316

12/13/2010, 04:16 PM

This thread reads like a bunch of nerds talking about Star Wars.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia

its on my favorites list. today i'm reading more about the great hyperspace wars.

3rdgensooner

12/13/2010, 04:25 PM

Han shot first.

/What's wrong with your face?????I have no idea what this means

The

12/13/2010, 04:26 PM

I have no idea what this means

You're obviously not a golfer.

Ike

12/13/2010, 04:34 PM

Han shot first.

/What's wrong with your face?????

Wookieleaks (http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/the-best-of-wookieleaks)

Aldebaran

12/13/2010, 04:40 PM

Wookieleaks (http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/the-best-of-wookieleaks)

This completes me.

The

12/13/2010, 04:41 PM

This completes me.

Have you tried analingus yet?

TUSooner

12/13/2010, 04:53 PM

Aldebaran

12/13/2010, 04:53 PM

Yes.

Aldebaran

12/13/2010, 04:57 PM

and... I'll just leave this here.

http://www.demockratees.com/images/englishonlyMAIN.jpg

The

12/13/2010, 05:04 PM

English wuz good enough for Jesus.

Fraggle145

12/13/2010, 05:06 PM

Who's trying to prove the existence of God? This thread is about (1) understanding why Christians oppose Harry Potter and (2) arguing over whether the Bible needs careful reading to fully appreciate and comprehend.

That wasnt the point I was trying to make.

OhU1

12/13/2010, 06:54 PM

Giving advice to non-Christians on reading the Bible is like giving advice on reading Newton's Principia to non-scientists. What's the point? Without genuine inspiration, the reading task becomes a chore; no one is going to devote that much effort to completing it.

If there is one thing all Bible bashers have in common is their claim that they have actually read the Bible. No, unless they are just happening to complete doctoral work in theology, they got their passages from the Internet. Of that I am pretty certain.

This seems to be an argument that you can't understand the Bible unless you are a Christian already because only a Christian will devote the time to read the Bible. Muslims say pretty much the same thing about their special magic book.

That leads me to ask this question - what is supposed to convince someone to become a Christian if they have to be a Christian in the first place to read and thus understand the Bible?

The majority of atheists I know used to be Christians. There are biblical scholars and ex-preachers who are now atheist and bash the Bible. Did they not really read the Bible either? The Bible is not exactly a rare or secret book - though I do understand anyone's reluctance to have to actually read it. It's not very compelling unless you already believe it.

Adrian

12/13/2010, 07:07 PM

English wuz good enough for Jesus.

And The King James Bible...

TUSooner

12/13/2010, 07:42 PM

This thread is way off the point; but whatever. :D I suggest that people read the new testament with an open mind. No, just read the gospels. Don't feel like you must believe everyword or criticize every word. Don't beat it over the head or pick it apart or stop to figure evrything out. Just read it like any old story. Then see if you can easily discount or hold in contempt the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm guessing you'll find some raw appeal in that compelling figure that will transcend the stuff that you don't like or the theology you can't figure or or don't want to figure out (and don't really even need to ;) ). Just my suggestion. You lose nothing by doing it, and you at least gain some kind of understanding. Dogmatic Christians especially need to do this instead of taking ALL of their religion from somebody paid to dish it out.

JohnnyMack

12/13/2010, 07:46 PM

This thread is way off the point; but whatever. :D I suggest that people read the book of Mormon with an open mind. No, just read the gospels. Don't feel like you must believe every word or criticize every word. Don't beat it over the head or pick it apart or stop to figure everything out. Just read it like any old story. Then see if you can easily discount or hold in contempt the person of Joseph Smith. I'm guessing you'll find some raw appeal in that compelling figure that will transcend the stuff that you don't like or the theology you can't figure or or don't want to figure out (and don't really even need to ;) ). Just my suggestion. You lose nothing by doing it, and you at least gain some kind of understanding. Dogmatic Mormons especially need to do this instead of taking ALL of their religion from somebody paid to dish it out.

...

JohnnyMack

12/13/2010, 07:48 PM

This thread is way off the point; but whatever. :D I suggest that people read Dianetics with an open mind. No, just read the gospels. Don't feel like you must believe every word or criticize every word. Don't beat it over the head or pick it apart or stop to figure everything out. Just read it like any old story. Then see if you can easily discount or hold in contempt the person of L. Ron Hubbard. I'm guessing you'll find some raw appeal in that compelling figure that will transcend the stuff that you don't like or the theology you can't figure or or don't want to figure out (and don't really even need to ;) ). Just my suggestion. You lose nothing by doing it, and you at least gain some kind of understanding. Dogmatic Christians especially need to do this instead of taking ALL of their religion from somebody paid to dish it out.

...

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 11:11 PM

This seems to be an argument that you can't understand the Bible unless you are a Christian already because only a Christian will devote the time to read the Bible. Muslims say pretty much the same thing about their special magic book.

That leads me to ask this question - what is supposed to convince someone to become a Christian if they have to be a Christian in the first place to read and thus understand the Bible?

Until you decide to devote yourself to physics, you are probably not going to read Principia.

The majority of atheists I know used to be Christians.

They used to call themselves Christians and they may have went to church once in awhile (especially on Easter), but I don't know anyone that devoted their life to Jesus who later abandoned Him. (Although there are undoubtedly a few that have.)

Leroy Lizard

12/13/2010, 11:15 PM

Dogmatic Christians especially need to do this instead of taking ALL of their religion from somebody paid to dish it out.

This is a misconception, although it is partially true for the Catholic Church. There is this notion out there that Christians just herd into a room to receive marching orders from a minister. In Protestantism each parishioner has a personal relationship with God.

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 12:00 AM

In Protestantism each parishioner has a personal relationship with God.

Unless, of course, you decide later that they must not have.

Leroy Lizard

12/14/2010, 12:09 AM

Unless, of course, you decide later that they must not have.

:confused:

The

12/14/2010, 09:26 AM

Obi-Won vs. Jesus:

Who wins?

or, even better, Chewbacca vs. Soloman.

TUSooner

12/14/2010, 09:28 AM

...

Dianetics vs the Gospels?
L. Ron vs Jesus of Nazareth?

Go ahead. IDGAS. :rolleyes:

The

12/14/2010, 09:29 AM

Dianetics vs the Gospels?
L. Ron vs Jesus of Nazareth?

Go ahead. IDGAS. :rolleyes:

Gospels, because Dianetics is boring as hell.

L. Ron, because he can talk to tomatoes.

TUSooner

12/14/2010, 09:55 AM

***

L. Ron, because he can talk to tomatoes.

Pffft. I talk to fruits, veggies, dumb animals, and inanimate objects all the time, usually in a profane way when they disobey me.

Ergo: me > L Ron.

OhU1

12/14/2010, 09:59 AM

They used to call themselves Christians and they may have went to church once in awhile (especially on Easter), but I don't know anyone that devoted their life to Jesus who later abandoned Him. (Although there are undoubtedly a few that have.)

I get it, these people were not true Christians. ;)

The

12/14/2010, 10:02 AM

Pffft. I talk to fruits, veggies, dumb animals, and inanimate objects all the time, usually in a profane way when they disobey me.

Ergo: me > L Ron.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/62325053_a8e032d751.jpg

crawfish

12/14/2010, 10:26 AM

There is nothing intrinsically complicated about the bible. It is essentially a compilation founded on oral stories passed down by ancient illiterate desert goat herders. The problems, contradictions, and absurdities are there for anyone to read and are also well noted by many who have "seriously studied" it. The material is considered "complicated" by those who insist that the bible makes any rational sense in the 21st century. Apologists and theologians want you to believe their particular spin and rationalization is the revealed truth. That you have to have some kind of special mystical mind power and years of study to understand the canonized myths. Please don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining.

My advice is to read the bible from the very start, read it with an open skeptically inquiring mind and then draw your own conclusions. Does this book strike you as something the all knowing creator of the universe would write (or inspire)? :pop:

The average person who is unfamiliar with the bible has no idea of its depth. I see too many people whose entire knowledge of the bible consists of preteen Sunday school lessons and atheist websites, and they think they know it better than the average Christian. This is a bunch of bunk. They might know stories and verses that don't get taught a lot in sermons, but reading them is like reading a Ken Ham treatise on evolution. It's obvious that many are just parroting arguable comments and treating them as inarguable facts.

I have read every book of the bible multiple times. I have a skeptical mind. I have studied ancient Middle Eastern culture to be able to understand the bible in its cultural context. I have read the work of theologians, apologists, skeptics and atheists, with an eye towards understanding their point of view and gaining a more holistic view. I very purposefully take on the tougher questions that skeptics ask. In light of that, my unequivocal opinion is that yes, it DOES strike me as something the all-knowing creator of the universe would inspire.

DIB

12/14/2010, 10:35 AM

This is a misconception, although it is partially true for the Catholic Church. There is this notion out there that Christians just herd into a room to receive marching orders from a minister. In Protestantism each parishioner has a personal relationship with God.

Classic Protestant tactic: get flustered by Atheist arguments, so you spout ignorance towards your fellow Christians. Geez, I wonder if dogmatic bickering is one of the things that turn people away from Christianity. If you don't think Catholics have a personal (and profound) relationship with God, then you know nothing of Catholicism.

The

12/14/2010, 10:35 AM

Catholics don't have souls.

Aldebaran

12/14/2010, 10:36 AM

People self identifying as thinkers saying they have through careful intellectual discernment determined that some supreme being is responsible for this totality make me laugh.

Thank you!

DIB

12/14/2010, 10:36 AM

Catholics don't have souls.

Of course not. That's why we eat Jesus, to borrow his.

crawfish

12/14/2010, 10:37 AM

I get it, these people were not true Christians. ;)

To be honest, I know a LOT of Christians who used to be atheists and agnostics. The majority of them I've spoke to point to a feeling of emptiness in their life, and to seeing Christian charity and love in their lives and wanting to be a part of it. I don't know of any that read the bible and decided it was true and then converted.

IMO, the basis of belief in the bible is faith. If you don't have faith you can pick it apart, but if you do have faith that it works out then you will find that it presents a consistent and non-conflicting message. Perhaps this sounds dubious, but I've tried applying the principle to other works and nothing else I've found is capable of being worked out rationally just by believing it should be.

crawfish

12/14/2010, 10:38 AM

People self identifying as thinkers saying they have through careful intellectual discernment determined that some supreme being is responsible for this totality make me laugh.

Thank you!

People self identifying as thinkers saying they have through careful intellectual discernment determined that a supreme being cannot be responsible for totality are just fooling themselves.

You're welcome.

The

12/14/2010, 10:40 AM

People self identifying as thinkers saying they have through careful intellectual discernment determined that a supreme being cannot be responsible for totality are just fooling themselves.

You're welcome.

Today young men on acid realize that all matter is really energy condensed to a slow vibration, and that we are all of one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream in which we are an imagination of ourselves.

Here's Tom with the weather.

DIB

12/14/2010, 10:41 AM

The

12/14/2010, 10:42 AM

Does String Theory give you an erection?

EVERYTHING gives me an erection.

3rdgensooner

12/14/2010, 10:42 AM

DIB

12/14/2010, 10:43 AM

EVERYTHING gives me an erection.

What about people that use "rubbish" when they mean garbage?

The

12/14/2010, 10:46 AM

What about people that use "rubbish" when they mean garbage?

Only if they have bad teef.

The

12/14/2010, 10:47 AM

Inception, coming to a theater near you.

http://files.sharenator.com/1284142099839_Inception_Vertical-s337x700-90689-580.jpg

crawfish

12/14/2010, 10:48 AM

Today young men on acid realize that all matter is really energy condensed to a slow vibration, and that we are all of one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream in which we are an imagination of ourselves.

Here's Tom with the weather.

I anticipated some type of argument like this (thought it might be the teapot or the FSM or something like that).

The point is that any such claim like yours above or mine is always subject to further thought. The idea itself is the starting point; you then move into a rational evaluation of the idea to discover what merit it has. Not all beliefs are equal; some make more sense than others. For instance, you may decide you don't believe in an orbiting teapot because you can't prove it exists or doesn't exist, but the belief would become more justified if you discovered cups of tea floating in space. You don't need proof to increase likelihood.

It is like assuming that all scientific hypothesis is bunk because you saw two or three really stupid ones that were disproven.

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 10:59 AM

Perhaps this sounds dubious, but I've tried applying the principle to other works and nothing else I've found is capable of being worked out rationally just by believing it should be.

That's because you didn't believe hard enough.

Believe harder!

crawfish

12/14/2010, 11:00 AM

That's because you didn't believe hard enough.

Believe harder!

This is exactly why I usually don't try to have serious discussions here. :)

Aldebaran

12/14/2010, 11:00 AM

No matter what you say, I'm right.

The

12/14/2010, 11:01 AM

That's because you didn't believe hard enough.

Believe harder!

I'm harder.

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 11:01 AM

This is exactly why I usually don't try to have serious discussions here. :)

Because you're always wrong?

crawfish

12/14/2010, 11:07 AM

Because you're always wrong?

Because I'm afraid of being too close to you when God strikes you down with fire. *

* Don't really believe that, just taking my arguments down a dozen intellectual notches to match the thread level.

The

12/14/2010, 11:07 AM

crawfish

12/14/2010, 11:08 AM

Dude, you're way out in left field.

Duh.

The

12/14/2010, 11:08 AM

Duh.

Umph.

Aldebaran

12/14/2010, 11:09 AM

Yeah... I can totally tell you're dumbing down your irrational beliefs so you can relate to us.

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 11:11 AM

Because I'm afraid of being too close to you when God strikes you down with fire. *

* Don't really believe that, just taking my arguments down a dozen intellectual notches to match the thread level.

But that's a couple notches above "Believing something makes sense that doesn't make sense works but only for the Bible." How do you reconcile this? Is it through faith alone that your intellectual notches seem to wrap around and form a circle?

TUSooner

12/14/2010, 11:12 AM

3rdgensooner

12/14/2010, 11:17 AM

Yeah... I can totally tell you're dumbing down your irrational beliefs so you can relate to us.I don't get it.

crawfish

12/14/2010, 11:18 AM

Yeah... I can totally tell you're dumbing down your irrational beliefs so you can relate to us.

Rest assured, I'm not surprised that you can't.

(If you don't get the subtle dig there I'll be more than happy to explain it to you.)

The

12/14/2010, 11:26 AM

Rest assured, I'm not surprised that you can't.

(If you don't get the subtle dig there I'll be more than happy to explain it to you.)
http://i.imgur.com/RaKg4.jpg

Aldebaran

12/14/2010, 11:28 AM

Is is about resting assured? Because I didn't arrive at my sense of understanding on a "just in case" basis.

crawfish

12/14/2010, 11:43 AM

But that's a couple notches above "Believing something makes sense that doesn't make sense works but only for the Bible." How do you reconcile this? Is it through faith alone that your intellectual notches seem to wrap around and form a circle?

Is the only truly rational thing to believe nothing that cannot be proven? I'd say no because there are definitely quite a few truths out there that cannot be proven given our lack of perspective and the current level of technology.

It is a valid and rational method to assume that something is true as the basis for exploring it and then trying to falsify it.

I think it's cute how you both are stretching yourselves trying to pretend you're as smart as I am, btw. :)

3rdgensooner

12/14/2010, 11:45 AM

I think it's cute how you both are stretching yourselves trying to pretend you're as smart as I am, btw. :)
You really are precious.

stoops the eternal pimp

12/14/2010, 11:46 AM

I think it's cute how you both are stretching yourselves trying to pretend you're as smart as I am, btw. :)

:D

The

12/14/2010, 11:47 AM

crawfish.. smartest anoymouse poster ever, or smartest anoymouse poster of all times?

DIB

12/14/2010, 11:52 AM

crawfish.. smartest anoymouse poster ever, or smartest anoymouse poster of all times?

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3526/anonymouse.png

JES!

DIB

12/14/2010, 11:54 AM

http://cnreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/we-are-anonymouse-guy-fawkes.jpeg

The

12/14/2010, 11:54 AM

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0808/anonymoose-anomymous-bullwinkle-demotivational-poster-1218774560.jpg

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 11:57 AM

because none of us are as cruel as the all of us

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/adolf-hitler.jpgoh yeah?

The

12/14/2010, 11:58 AM

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8782/achievementunlocked.jpg

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 12:01 PM

http://iamnotarapperispit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-BigAl-Network-Hitler-Get-s-Pissed-at-BigAl-s-Suspension-e9291458.jpg

The

12/14/2010, 12:01 PM

http://www.photocove.com/myupload/emo_886wjudvqo.jpg

DIB

12/14/2010, 12:03 PM

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kww16vJyAs1qzmowao1_400.jpg

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 12:05 PM

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/mack-hitler.png

The

12/14/2010, 12:05 PM

http://www.iphonespies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/200px-Funny_Hitler.jpg

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 12:07 PM

Is the only truly rational thing to believe nothing that cannot be proven? I'd say no because there are definitely quite a few truths out there that cannot be proven given our lack of perspective and the current level of technology.

It is a valid and rational method to assume that something is true as the basis for exploring it and then trying to falsify it.

I think it's cute how you both are stretching yourselves trying to pretend you're as smart as I am, btw. :)

If you didn't already believe you were saving face here, you would recognize your total argument revisionism as the utter surrender that it is.

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 12:07 PM

looks like somebody needs a distraction. Ladies and Gentlemen, Darth Twitty

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/Darth-twitty.gif

DIB

12/14/2010, 12:08 PM

http://weedoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/i-have-eliminated-all-the-juice.jpg

The

12/14/2010, 12:10 PM

If you didn't already believe you were saving face here, you would recognize your total argument revisionism as the utter surrender that it is.

OTTER surrender.

DIB

12/14/2010, 12:13 PM

OTTER surrender.

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/evil_otter.jpg

The

12/14/2010, 12:14 PM

http://www.yourfunnypic.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/funny-pictures-greedy-otter-beer-bud.jpg

DIB

12/14/2010, 12:16 PM

http://www.yourfunnypic.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/funny-pictures-greedy-otter-beer-bud.jpg

http://www.emmaverse.com/images/Misc/ohnootter2.jpg

The

12/14/2010, 12:16 PM

http://blissfullydomestic.com/wp-content/uploads/funny-pictures-otter-has-an-other-half.jpg

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 12:17 PM

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/pom-pom-pom.png

DIB

12/14/2010, 12:18 PM

http://www.dicapriobengals.com/funny-pictures-otter-children-bucket.jpg

The

12/14/2010, 12:19 PM

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/9/128890569825191747.jpg

OhU1

12/14/2010, 12:19 PM

To be honest, I know a LOT of Christians who used to be atheists and agnostics. The majority of them I've spoke to point to a feeling of emptiness in their life, and to seeing Christian charity and love in their lives and wanting to be a part of it. I don't know of any that read the bible and decided it was true and then converted.

IMO, the basis of belief in the bible is faith. If you don't have faith you can pick it apart, but if you do have faith that it works out then you will find that it presents a consistent and non-conflicting message. Perhaps this sounds dubious, but I've tried applying the principle to other works and nothing else I've found is capable of being worked out rationally just by believing it should be.

I agree with everything you said above. Religious conviction is based on faith.

We could argue about the merits of believing anything based on faith but I doubt either of us would change our opinion. I would wager that there are more people (or %) falling away from faith in Christianity than there are skeptics or atheists converting. I would agree that people need other people and the church provides a community and a sense of purpose for many.

If faith is the basis of a person's belief then there is no argument that can be made against that. I personally cannot believe any supernatural claim based on faith. For me that would literally be impossible. But what I believe or don't believe about a God is irrelevant IMO.

The

12/14/2010, 12:20 PM

I agree with everything you said above. Religious conviction is based on faith.

We could argue about the merits of believing anything based on faith but I doubt either of us would change our opinion. I would wager that there are more people (or %) falling away from faith in Christianity than there are skeptics or atheists converting. I would agree that people need other people and the church provides a community and a sense of purpose for many.

If faith is the basis of a person's belief then there is no argument that can be made against that. I personally cannot believe any supernatural claim based on faith. For me that would literally be impossible. But what I believe or don't believe about a God is irrelevant IMO.

What does this have to do with Conway Twitty?

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 12:20 PM

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/otter-jr.png

The

12/14/2010, 12:21 PM

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/otter-jr.png

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/11/5out7otters128629499360934169.jpg

OhU1

12/14/2010, 12:24 PM

What does this have to do with Conway Twitty?

My bad. Off topic. :D

The

12/14/2010, 12:25 PM

My bad. Off topic. :D
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/14/128842149737465821.jpg

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 12:28 PM

Looks like somebody needs an unrelated injury. Ladies and gentlemen, Conway Schmidty.
http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/conw.png

The

12/14/2010, 12:29 PM

http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_sea_otter_tshirt-p23526787302270480515rf_400.jpg

crawfish

12/14/2010, 12:49 PM

You really are precocious.

You are correct, sir or ma'am.

crawfish

12/14/2010, 01:02 PM

If you didn't already believe you were saving face here, you would recognize your total argument revisionism as the utter surrender that it is.

I would need to see some clue that you actually understood my argument before I'd accept that I had any face that needed saving.

You might explain where I've ever revised my argument?

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 01:06 PM

You are correct, sir or ma'am.3g is a lady.

I would need to see some clue that you actually understood my argument before I'd accept that I had any face that needed saving.

You might explain where I've ever revised my argument?

Thaum is trolling you. Albeit, he's very funny. When my sarcasm grows up it wants to be like Thaum's sarcasm.

Remember, you are under no obligation to reveal truth to those who don't want it, and will use it to trample you (analogy of the pearls and swine).

JohnnyMack

12/14/2010, 01:08 PM

will use it to trample you.

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/cards/15240.jpg

crawfish

12/14/2010, 01:28 PM

Thaum is trolling you. Albeit, he's very funny. When my sarcasm grows up it wants to be like Thaum's sarcasm.

Remember, you are under no obligation to reveal truth to those who don't want it, and will use it to trample you (analogy of the pearls and swine).

They're ALL trolling me. :)

I'm only in as long as I'm having fun. I like to debate and I like to be silly. I draw the line at stupid, though. :)

JohnnyMack

12/14/2010, 01:37 PM

They're ALL trolling me. :)

I'm only in as long as I'm having fun. I like to debate and I like to be silly. I draw the line at stupid, though. :)

I thought you WERE a troll.

3rdgensooner

12/14/2010, 01:42 PM

How do you discern silly versus stupid?

DIB

12/14/2010, 01:56 PM

3g is a robot.

truf

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/cards/15240.jpg

I think I have that card

They're ALL trolling me. :)

I'm only in as long as I'm having fun. I like to debate and I like to be silly. I draw the line at stupid, though. :)

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/23/128772359870830312.jpg

The

12/14/2010, 01:58 PM

truf

GIS for 3rd Generation Robot:

http://www.techdigest.tv/motoman-sda10-robot-cooking-thumb-400x295.jpg

Looks about right.

3rdgensooner

12/14/2010, 01:59 PM

Good gawd call comedy rule on the robot crap. It was funny in 2008.

The

12/14/2010, 02:00 PM

Good gawd call comedy rule on the robot crap. It was funny in 2008.

BEEP BOOP BEEP!

crawfish

12/14/2010, 02:13 PM

How do you discern silly versus stupid?

You got me there.

The

12/14/2010, 02:14 PM

You got me there.

That's just stupid.

crawfish

12/14/2010, 02:17 PM

That's just stupid.

Obviously, I was wrong.

Sooner_Bob

12/14/2010, 03:06 PM

I thought you WERE a troll.

He's a carpet cleaning, tire shop owning, troll . . .

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 03:29 PM

You might explain where I've ever revised my argument?

Somehow "Believing something a priori can cause it to make sense, but only if that something is the Bible. Trust me, I've tried it." metamorphosized into "Assuming something for the sake of argument to try and falsify it is a valuable reasoning strategy." We all saw it happen, and it was as beautiful as a butterfly fluttering its wings for the first time since emerging from its cocoon...

Only to be eaten by a nearby frog. These things can seem cold and cruel, but such is the way of nature.

The

12/14/2010, 03:36 PM

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld8qgeeG1g1qe11kdo1_500.jpg

2121Sooner

12/14/2010, 03:38 PM

3g is a lady.

Lady? Talk about playing loose with the English language.

DIB

12/14/2010, 03:40 PM

Cdiz0k0Rudw

2121Sooner

12/14/2010, 03:44 PM

I wanted to stop watching that..............but I couldnt!!!!

I'M NOT TROLLIN!!!!

3rdgensooner

12/14/2010, 03:48 PM

Lady? Talk about playing loose with the English language.You say that like playing loose is a bad thing.

MR2-Sooner86

12/14/2010, 03:54 PM

You say that like playing loose is a bad thing.

:hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

crawfish

12/14/2010, 04:10 PM

Somehow "Believing something a priori can cause it to make sense, but only if that something is the Bible. Trust me, I've tried it." metamorphosized into "Assuming something for the sake of argument to try and falsify it is a valuable reasoning strategy." We all saw it happen, and it was as beautiful as a butterfly fluttering its wings for the first time since emerging from its cocoon...

Only to be eaten by a nearby frog. These things can seem cold and cruel, but such is the way of nature.

I guess it's easy when you're paraphrasing me wrong. I only implied part one if you assume that I'm claiming I've tried everything. Otherwise, I'm simply claiming that internal consistency is not a simple thing to accomplish and that I've tested this hypothesis with other material.

The second part is patently true no matter how you look at the bible. Think about it - if you assume there is no God so the bible must be inconsistent and flawed, then you must also assume that it is a document that has no overall guiding force behind it an therefore evaluate it in a certain way. That may be satisfying to someone who doesn't believe, but do you really think it would matter to someone who held a different assumption? The only way to prove decisively that something is wrong is to assume it's truth and then pull it apart from the inside. Approach the bible from the standpoint that "maybe there is a God and He did inspire this thing" and you will be at a stronger point from which to argue there is not.

AlboSooner

12/14/2010, 04:16 PM

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/aggy-fake-soldier.gif

2121Sooner

12/14/2010, 04:22 PM

You say that like playing loose is a bad thing.

You had me at hello

stoopified

12/14/2010, 04:58 PM

Thaumaturge

12/14/2010, 08:04 PM

I guess it's easy when you're paraphrasing me wrong. I only implied part one if you assume that I'm claiming I've tried everything. Otherwise, I'm simply claiming that internal consistency is not a simple thing to accomplish and that I've tested this hypothesis with other material.

The second part is patently true no matter how you look at the bible. Think about it - if you assume there is no God so the bible must be inconsistent and flawed, then you must also assume that it is a document that has no overall guiding force behind it an therefore evaluate it in a certain way. That may be satisfying to someone who doesn't believe, but do you really think it would matter to someone who held a different assumption? The only way to prove decisively that something is wrong is to assume it's truth and then pull it apart from the inside. Approach the bible from the standpoint that "maybe there is a God and He did inspire this thing" and you will be at a stronger point from which to argue there is not.

I don't disagree with the second part. I disagree with the assertion that it was what you originally meant when you said:

"If you don't have faith you can pick it apart, but if you do have faith that it works out then you will find that it presents a consistent and non-conflicting message. Perhaps this sounds dubious, but I've tried applying the principle to other works and nothing else I've found is capable of being worked out rationally just by believing it should be."

Having faith is clearly different than supposing something to be the truth for the sake of evaluating its internal consistency.