The Bible - not 100% literal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2012, 08:23 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Sir, I understand your point now.
I take back everything I said and state the opposite.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
For me, it boils down to one easy sticking point.

If you "believe" in the Adam and Eve story as literal, then the bible makes sense (in a semi-twisted way)...

If you think Adam and Eve is an allegory, then your whole strawman falls apart.

Without the underpinnings of "original sin," the Jesus as savior/redeemer/sacrificer is unnecessary - therefore, the whole story arc is worse than a Joan Collins novel.

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Seasbury's post
01-01-2012, 09:21 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
I don't know why we have another topic on the bible, has no one argued this point to KC?

KC mate, the position you place yourself in, however humble, still causes issues with people like me. Your position is deliberately made to adjust to whatever needs to be bent to fit your faith, this I cannot agree with or understand.

I argue the bible is not a source for anything divinely valid. It is 100% faith based that people believe the bible was divinely inspired. The issue with this is, it can be applied to anything and everything. This is why my position only respects atheist, agnostics, and deist. In the 21st century it is purely wishful thinking to be a theist.

The issue with how one should perceive the bible is not set in stone. This is why you can never find a religion that agrees on everything. We can't prove who wrote the bible, if it was divinely influenced, the time and place it was created, if the people who wrote it were really just out for power, nothing mate.

This is why the bible is of no concern to me when debating anything in it. I purely discuss Gods/Goddesses philosophically because the tool religious people use(the bible) has no bearing of influence in a discussion at all.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like NotSoVacuous's post
01-01-2012, 09:40 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Im excited to see how KC will reply to all of this xD

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2012 10:07 AM by free2011.)
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 09:21 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I argue the bible is not a source for anything divinely valid. It is 100% faith based that people believe the bible was divinely inspired. The issue with this is, it can be applied to anything and everything. This is why my position only respects atheist, agnostics, and deist. In the 21st century it is purely wishful thinking to be a theist.

The issue with how one should perceive the bible is not set in stone. This is why you can never find a religion that agrees on everything. We can't prove who wrote the bible, if it was divinely influenced, the time and place it was created, if the people who wrote it were really just out for power, nothing mate.

This is why the bible is of no concern to me when debating anything in it. I purely discuss Gods/Goddesses philosophically because the tool religious people use(the bible) has no bearing of influence in a discussion at all.

Well said. It is always an area of frustration to me that the religious think the only "evidence" they require is the bible. A simple collection of stories written 2,000 years ago by people, who by no fault of their own, were lacking any scientific understanding of their world.

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 09:40 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Im excited to see how KC will reply to all of this xD

Oh, worry not, young grasshopper. He's fully committed. He will wiggle out of this.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Malleus's post
01-01-2012, 10:52 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 10:21 AM)Malleus Wrote:  
(01-01-2012 09:40 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Im excited to see how KC will reply to all of this xD

Oh, worry not, young grasshopper. He's fully committed. He will wiggle out of this.

Mental gymnastics...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 10:52 AM)Seasbury Wrote:  
(01-01-2012 10:21 AM)Malleus Wrote:  
(01-01-2012 09:40 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Im excited to see how KC will reply to all of this xD

Oh, worry not, young grasshopper. He's fully committed. He will wiggle out of this.

Mental gymnastics...

I prefer the term mental masturbation...

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
01-01-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(01-01-2012 06:54 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Third premise: We all have a straight parental genealogy linking us to BOTH Adam and Steve.

I like Adam and Steve, but if that's the case, are you sure our parental genealogy was all that straight?

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cufflink's post
01-01-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Everything is possible when you add an unlimited number of miracles. If they say it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve to justify their homophobia, I can claim the opposite with equally valid arguments.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: