You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(03-04-2012 08:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-04-2012 08:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yes. Scripture is inspired by Him to the author.


I approve of this part of the above message: "God never said".

Any accusation that I have quoted KC out context will be met with the retort that all bible quotes, literal or figurative are, by definition, taken out of context.

That the bible itself is a Con Text, is purely coincidental
Don't make me post the "zing" pic again.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(03-04-2012 08:50 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(03-04-2012 08:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I approve of this part of the above message: "God never said".

Any accusation that I have quoted KC out context will be met with the retort that all bible quotes, literal or figurative are, by definition, taken out of context.

That the bible itself is a Con Text, is purely coincidental
Don't make me post the "zing" pic again.
[Image: tumblr_kvx4astfid1qzc176o1_400.jpg]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like germanyt's post
03-04-2012, 03:09 PM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
If you were reading a documentary and found that most of it was simply made up, how much of the parts that you couldn't prove were made up would you still think were true?
I suggest that you would dismiss the entire documentary.

If someone you trusted lied to you once, then twice, then a third time, even if it was of nothing important, would you believe them when they told you something important?
I suggest that you would not believe anything they said until you could verify their claim.

So why are we still arguing about "parts" of the bible "probably" being true that we can't prove untrue, when most of the verifiable parts have been proven untrue?
Theist, don't bother asking me for a list. Get your own.

I believe the argument is over and not worth revisiting.
Then again I'm just a pompus atheist with an axe to grind for my parents dragging me off to Sunday school when I could have been at the beach hitting on hot chicks.
I may be slightly bias.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thomas's post
03-04-2012, 10:50 PM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
I don't find telling the difference between literal and figurative to be that difficult when one has a significant knowledge of the history of the formation of the bible and each of its books. Now it might be unfair to hold people to my level of knowledge of obscure historical knowledge. But much like Thomas, I'm a pompous ass, I also enjoy the feeling I get of feeling intellectually superior to other people. which is why I'm here. (note I am not saying I am overall smarter than everyone here, just in terms of history, at least for most of you....i think)

P.S. By the way I don't consider the bible inerrant

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
04-04-2012, 12:32 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(03-04-2012 10:50 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I don't find telling the difference between literal and figurative to be that difficult when one has a significant knowledge of the history of the formation of the bible and each of its books. Now it might be unfair to hold people to my level of knowledge of obscure historical knowledge. But much like Thomas, I'm a pompous ass, I also enjoy the feeling I get of feeling intellectually superior to other people. which is why I'm here. (note I am not saying I am overall smarter than everyone here, just in terms of history, at least for most of you....i think)

P.S. By the way I don't consider the bible inerrant



I bow to your greater knowledge of history. You bow to my greater knowledge of spelling... too

"Blessed is the mind to small for doubt"



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-04-2012, 12:07 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 03:45 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Stop taking the Bible too fucking literally and go back to believing the Earth was made in 7 days.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
04-04-2012, 01:37 PM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
Oh man this is good stuff, don't take it so literally, I take this part literally though. Con-artist's convinced people that an invisible man told him to write it. Just so happens that it helped with their agenda during that time. What gets me is people that believe this nonsense make logical decisions everyday based on evidence and yet they still follow this garbage with zero evidence.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Clint Barnett's post
04-04-2012, 08:27 PM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
My response?
Pick up their holy operating manual and slap them across the face with it, declaring:
"You're the one taking the bible. Literally." Laughat

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Quidsane's post
04-04-2012, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 09:51 PM by Godless.)
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
(03-04-2012 08:02 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Well, I guess it really depends on which part of the Bible you're talking about.

There are some parts that are stories. There are some parts that are historical data. There are some parts that are visions and apocalyptic language.

Moreover, the Bible isn't a science book, and it shouldn't be held to a scientific standard. God never said that His Word was literally inerrant. He said that His Word is divinely inspired and is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteous. No where does it say that it's useful in teaching science.

There is a gigantic difference between "inspired" and "inerrant".
I used to believe there were parts of the bible that were historical but the more I look into it the more I find that almost no part at all of the bible is historically accurate to the standards that most historians require.

Is there a particular section or sections you feel are historically accurate?

That having been said my typical response to people who claim that we are being too literal is quite simple.

Oh yes because expecting an omniscience, omnipresent, and benevolent god to be accurate and accountable with the only set of instructions he leaves us is too high a standard for such a being.

Instead he has to leave it to us humans to interpret, translate, select (from dozens of gospels!) and mass produce his message for him and figure out which parts to take in which context.

This wouldn't even be so bad if said god would communicate with those reading to let them know what narrative bend to take with each passage but we all know how god is with communications.

Seriously though the moment a person makes the "out of context" argument without providing context it lets me know how truly informed they are about how logic and argument work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Godless's post
05-04-2012, 06:36 AM
RE: You're taking the bible too literal...your response.
I want to say this again. Please I beg of you theists to stop and think.
If the provable parts of a book are wrong, and you know the parts, how can the parts the can't be proven or disproven be claimed as true with a straight face?
Stop this insanity. Can you not see your delusion?

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: