yeah, I feel like if you have a passion for learning something, you shouldn't need to run to wiki.

But at least he is not being an ass. I think that I must be a literary nerd or something, because sometimes I just want to break out into tears when I read the NT, and I am not a religious person. I just think that it is literary genius.

12/29/2012 2:16:33 PM

You said it, not me.

But a few conflicting stories, lectures, bashing gays and women, then an acid trip at the end don't really do it for me.

And yes, that's a gross oversimplification. I forgot to mention the almost certainly fabricated Acts.

[Edited on December 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2012 2:22:24 PM

from one gentleman to another: you are not reading it critically. Maybe take a lecture course on it or something?

12/29/2012 2:51:35 PM

Says the guy emotionally attached to the text.

12/29/2012 4:24:09 PM

I am an atheist, have no emotional attachment to the bible, but your simplification is missing the gospel of Christ stuff some of which does actually have some good things that are the type of things even an atheist can agree with (the not be a douche and help others stuff)

There's also some cool stories with all kinds of rape and incest that you see played out in many different stories, historically significant plays and books, tv shows, and movies, etc... Except for the language, [i]some[/] of the stories are good from an entertainment perspective

12/29/2012 4:56:17 PM

Quote :

"Lewisje is the king of pretending like he knows about everything by quickly googling it. Seriously, any topic and the dude is an expert."

What you don't know is that I've been Googling about this stuff for like the past 2 and a half years off and on, and generally I don't post stuff after just a quick Google search but rather after numerous ones, along with the following of leads from other stuff I've found; also, what may come across as "pretending" like I know everything is just laying out a bunch of stuff I do know because I found it interesting (like I could also dig up a bunch of stuff about cars or sports teams for The Garage or Sports Talk, but I don't, because nothing there interests me).

Also don't knock the Wikipedia: It's actually quite reliable, especially for stuff like the Wholly Babble that lots of scholars and ordinary people have an interest in.
Now if I were writing some journalistic piece or something held to a higher standard, I'd rather follow the sources that article used as a starting point for deep research, but for message-board posts, methinks the collective wisdom of the Wikipedians will do fine.

12/29/2012 5:30:49 PM

Quote :

"There's also some cool stories"

Hard to be bored by a book that contains multiple zombies, multiple talking animals & a rampaging, genocidal, omnipotent being that loves us all

[Edited on December 29, 2012 at 5:48 PM. Reason : B]

12/29/2012 5:36:48 PM

If you want some good reading, try some christian apologetics. I read a lot of the major ones and remained unconvinced. You'll certainly learn a lot more about it than you will on here.

12/29/2012 5:42:55 PM

i wanna get touched by His noodly appendage

12/29/2012 7:01:52 PM

Quote :

"I am an atheist, have no emotional attachment to the bible, but your simplification is missing the gospel of Christ stuff some of which does actually have some good things that are the type of things even an atheist can agree with (the not be a douche and help others stuff) "

I admitted it was a gross simplification. This line of reasoning goes against his lovely imitatio christo stuff though since most of the "don't be a douche" and "help others" is conveyed through Jesus's sermons and Paul's lectures.

12/29/2012 7:38:51 PM

The bible says teh gays to be stoned (which is clearly a reference of Washington legalizing gay marriage and pot in the same election) Working on Sunday is just as bad.

Exodus 31:15

Quote :

" 15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23%3A20&version=NIV

This is just funny:

Ezekiel 23:20

Quote :

"20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

12/30/2012 9:04:29 AM

I thout that was part of a longer sentence, but I guess only the RSV and its descendants, the NRSV and ESV, do that (okay, also the HCSB and Darby): http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel+23:20

Quote :

"19. Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt 20. and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions."

-NRSV

also this passage IMO is the most common law broken by self-described Christians (attributed to Jebus himself): http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:27-30&version=NRSV;TNIV;NLT;CEV;MSG

Quote :

"27. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell."

I actually like the phrasing of The Message, using "a moral trash pile" and "the dump" where the original said "Gehenna" and most translations use the literal "hell": After all, the real Gehenna actually was an incinerator.

12/30/2012 1:56:59 PM

Quote :

"in your reading, what's the evil that's been revealed?"

Evil was not revealed, it already existed. What was revealed was the ability to know the difference between good and evil in order to make a choice. In my opinion, the question of original sin should also include a conversation about free choice/predestination/fate.

Quote :

"also, I've never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever heard it stated that "sin is genetic" or that original sin is passed down genetically."

I didn't mean physical genes, I'm referring to the common belief that because Adam and Eve sinned that their children were born sinners and so on and so on. I used the wrong word, but I don't think it is that hard to figure out what I meant. But again, I'm arguing against original sin (which, inevitably, is an argument against the need for a savior).

Quote :

"they should re-write it to be more dramatic and poetic and less preachy, and maybe it could be taught that way."

The Bible is way mroe poetic than preachy. Some of it is history, some of it is law, but most of it is story.

Quote :

"Yes, one recurring trope in Abrahamic religions is knowledge is wrong and you need to just trust your god. That should set off alarm bells in your head."

Then you have a clear misunderstanding of those religious traditions. Judaism is all about teaching, learning, interpreting, and self-discovery. The more you know, the better your choices can be. And that extends outside of biblical teachings.

Quote :

"It's full of bad writing... poor sentence and story structure"

Type a sentance into google translate and take it from English to German to Latin to Greek to Hebrew, and then all the way back again. I doubt the structure will make much sense anymore. Everything changes as it is reinterpreted.

12/30/2012 6:22:02 PM

Quote :

" Judaism is all about teaching, learning, interpreting, and self-discovery. The more you know, the better your choices can be. And that extends outside of biblical teachings. "

To the exclusion of the existence of Yahweh and the barbarism of the OT.

I mean, I know I'm at risk of getting cries of "CONTEXT" here, though c'mon it's a proverb:

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2012 9:19:50 AM

i grew up learning that as a song

12/31/2012 10:22:52 AM

Somehow I don't think this is what Heaven was originally meant to be like...

...but it's full of warm fuzzies anyway~♥: http://imgur.com/gallery/FCRP0

12/31/2012 2:46:59 PM

Judaism teaches a clear difference between knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

"Lean not on your own understanding" means your own understanding as an individual is not enough, it takes open dialogue (which is what I'm trying to accomplish here) to accumulate knowledge and wisdom..

Besides, psalms are writings of man, not law. You can't use it as a "Oh but G-d says you have to do this!" on either side of the conversation.

12/31/2012 2:51:58 PM

To elaborate on ^ IIRC...

A couple days ago, I learned from the Wikipedia that the Ketuvim ("Writings") in the Tanakh (from the first initials of its components, and known to Christians in rearranged form, possibly with added Deuterocanonical works from the Diaspora, as the "Old Testament") are considered by Jews to be mere writings about God rather than divinely-inspired works (as in the Nevi'im or "Prophets") or the literal Word of God (Torah or "Instruction," known to Christians as the Pentateuch); TIL, as suspected, that the Psalms and Proverbs are in the Ketuvim and therefore are regarded by Jews (as opposed to, say, fundamentalist Protestants) to have come from people rather than God.

That "rearranged" bit is significant: Christians probably remember Ruth coming right before Kings (or "Samuel" and "Kings"), which was followed immediately by Chronicles (or "Paralipomenon"), but in the Tanakh, Samuel and Kings are in the Nevi'im, while Ruth and Chronicles are in the Ketuvim; basically the Jews didn't canonicalize the Tanakh until well after the rise of Christianity, so there were two separate efforts involved.

12/31/2012 4:05:26 PM

It is commonly believed that King David wrote most of them...and he wasn't exactly a holy person.

Sending a man to the front lines of battle so that he would die and you could bang his wife without consequence? That's low.

12/31/2012 4:12:30 PM

Quote :

"It is commonly believed that King David wrote most of them...and he wasn't exactly a holy person."

It's not certain he was a person at all. He's got about as much evidence supporting historicity as King Arthur.

12/31/2012 4:29:01 PM

^^in the same sense that it is "commonly believed" that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; that is, "traditionally"

IRL we don't actually know who first wrote the Psalms

12/31/2012 5:18:59 PM

Whether or not he was real is not the point.

They are poetic devotions to G-d written by a person/character who was imperfect. There's a lesson trying to be learned in that alone.

This isn't a great comparrison but Scrooge teaches us it is never too late to become a better person.

1/1/2013 11:05:04 AM

Quote :

"Whether or not he was real is not the point."

It is the point. Religious stories aren't just nice stories, they're statements about truth. There's no reason other than the Bible being true to believe in Yahweh either. Is that not important to religion?

1/1/2013 1:07:48 PM

^You are making the common confusion that Christianity = every religion.

You can believe in a divine presence without believing the scriptures as written. Many people do. There are also many religions in the world with no god figure. For example, most stories about Buddha have no godly or divine influence or statements of "this is truth." They are stories meant to reveal moral lessons about life.

1/1/2013 1:31:02 PM

^^ The point is that you get the idea of the teachings. God and Jesus do not have to be real for you to do that.

1/1/2013 1:45:17 PM

^^I for one was surprised to learn that not every religion even has some super-important set of canonical scriptures that all adherents are supposed to read, like that's mostly an Abrahamic thing too; ditto for the fact that a notable minority of religions, including a few denominations of Christianity, do not believe in a literal Hell or its analogue.

[Edited on January 1, 2013 at 4:37 PM. Reason : moar

1/1/2013 4:34:46 PM

For those of you with an attention span longer than your average show on Adult Swim, I recommend the following speech by George Will:

Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbA5ab18SCo

Text of speech - http://rap.wustl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/George-Will-lecture-text.pdf

Peggy Noonan called this "the most important speech so far in the in the 21st Century"
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/12/29/the-most-important-speech-so-far-in-the-21st-century/

I was awakened around 4:30 this morning and was unable to fall back asleep so I decided to test Ms. Noonan's assertion. I too agree Will's speech was well done.
The Q&A session after the speech is also worth watching.

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 7:07 AM. Reason : ....]

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 7:08 AM. Reason : ....]

1/2/2013 7:04:27 AM

Quote :

"You can believe in a divine presence without believing the scriptures as written. Many people do."

Sure, but you can't make any useful statements about such a presence. Is 'deism' what you actually mean when you made a topic about 'religious concepts?'

Quote :

"There are also many religions in the world with no god figure. For example, most stories about Buddha have no godly or divine influence or statements of "this is truth." "

True, but Buddhism makes similarly unsubstantiated truth statements about Siddhartha Gautama Buddha and Nirvana. They vary wildly but you can't divorce all truth statements from religion like it's just theoretical philosophy. Without the statements about life/reality/morality it's not religious at all.

Quote :

"They are stories meant to reveal moral lessons about life."

And these aren't truth statements to be studied and falsified? For far too long religion has convinced us that morality isn't something that we can study. Otherwise, how would you know whether the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are any more or less accurate than whatever you currently believe?

1/2/2013 9:08:48 AM

^I would really like to hear what your definition of religion is.

1/2/2013 4:09:50 PM

I don't mind dictionary.com's defintion:

Quote :

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

It's more than transcendental meditation and thinking really hard. It involves truth statements about the nature of the Universe and humanity which are usually and incorrectly exempt from the scrutiny they deserve.

1/3/2013 8:50:28 AM

Quote :

"truth statements about the nature of the Universe and humanity"

That's not religion, that's philosophy. Try again.

1/3/2013 2:45:38 PM

"involves" not "is the totality of". Did you just completely ignore the quoted definition which I clearly stated I agreed with because it was convenient for you to make a quip?

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 3:21:04 PM

I don't want to know what the dictionary says. There is no one true definition of what religion is because no definition can actually encompass every religion.

I want to know what YOU mean when you refer to religion. What you've put in your own words, in my opinion, is a better description of philosophy than it is religion. But if to you they are one in the same, then it's good to know when reading over your comments.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM. Reason : -]

1/3/2013 3:41:47 PM

So.... yes.

1/3/2013 3:42:47 PM

It's obvious that I don't think philosophy is the same as religion and it's clear that what was my own words was in addition to the dictionary definition I provided. As you put it, "religion" has varied meanings so instead of playing this game where you try to tie me down to a particular definition and then say "A HA! see, I can name a 'religion' that doesn't exactly fit THAT definition," why don't we have an actual conversation?

Were you intending to include deistic religious concepts in this conversation? What can usefully be said about a deistic god? Clearly the Abrahamic religions worship a god more involved with mortal affairs than a deistic god.

Do you disagree that Buddhism makes unsubstantiated supernatural claims?

Do you believe that morality can only be understood within a religious and not a secular context?

1/3/2013 4:40:39 PM

If I call something big but you call it huge, then we could be talking about the same thing with different understandings of what it is. It is important that we understand each other's vantage point before having the conversation of what it is.

However, I didn't really want this to be about the nature of religion but rather specific beliefs and view points within religious sects. I started with original sin just because it was on my mind around Christmas time with all the "saving of souls" folks were trying to do out on the streets.

A discussion on the nature of a god or gods can only be had in the context of each individual belief group, otherwise it becomes a two sided argument whether or not a god or gods do or can exist. I find your question about a god from a deistic ground hard to grasp because I grew up in an Abrahamic religion that teaches how to find G-d in nature, so I don't feel that the two contradict each other.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, many Deists would argue that G-d, although a creator, is not a miracle worker. However I believe that the fact the world continues to work as it does (nature, physics, etc) on a daily basis is a miracle in itself.

Quote :

"Do you disagree that Buddhism makes unsubstantiated supernatural claims?"

Of course they make claims, but they are very different from the kinds of things Christianity teaches about the nature of god(s) in respect to deeper knowledge of the universe.

Quote :

"Do you believe that morality can only be understood within a religious and not a secular context?"

I believe morality is set by society and home environments. Religion is clearly a HUGE factor for both categories, but is not the only driving point.

1/3/2013 7:38:28 PM

Quote :

"And these aren't truth statements to be studied and falsified?"

Look man, we are not talking about the part of the bible that says pork is bad for you. Of course we know that is false. We are talking about the lessons from kane and abel, the prodigal son, the teachings of christ. These are philosophical ideas. It is different.

1/4/2013 12:56:03 AM

Quote :

"A discussion on the nature of a god or gods can only be had in the context of each individual belief group, otherwise it becomes a two sided argument whether or not a god or gods do or can exist. "

And of course I see this as classic "putting the cart before the horse" that every religious person does. If you can't demonstrate that your god even exists how can you have any conversation about its nature that isn't just rampant speculation? And doesn't the fact that you even have to have that argument with people of other religions compel you to think for a second that maybe yours isn't special? (granted, I know it's easier to think, "hey maybe we're both right and we're really just worshiping the same god/force/whatever"?)

Quote :

"As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, many Deists would argue that G-d, although a creator, is not a miracle worker. However I believe that the fact the world continues to work as it does (nature, physics, etc) on a daily basis is a miracle in itself."

Well, I assume deists follow a similar tack. They can't fathom that complexity can arise naturally and go "something ultra-powerful must have made all this, it's clearly a miracle."

Quote :

"Of course they make claims, but they are very different from the kinds of things Christianity teaches about the nature of god(s) in respect to deeper knowledge of the universe."

My point was to show that religious claims are necessarily supernatural and non-demonstrable, making them distinct from general philosophical claims. If they're not, then they can be completely disassociated from religion. The Golden Rule, for instance, isn't unique to Christianity or even theism. Crediting Yahweh for it is just wrong (not saying you or anyone else in the thread is doing this, just an example). That Yahweh exists, that things in the OT actually happened or have some transcendental meaning, that Christ actually resurrected, those are religious claims.

Quote :

"I believe morality is set by society and home environments. Religion is clearly a HUGE factor for both categories, but is not the only driving point."

I don't think it has much of a factor anymore thankfully. Consider this, if you were to suddenly learn that your religion is false and there really is no god, would you just start raping and killing everyone in sight?

I believe morality is an evolved and a learned behavior. You spend the first 15 or so year of your life being completely cared for by other humans and then you likely spend another 15/25 years taking care of other humans directly. The nature of our species and reproduction necessitates general population altruism and I think we just made up religions to help explain why before we understood more fully our actual origin. Probably a topic for another thread though.

Quote :

"Look man, we are not talking about the part of the bible that says pork is bad for you. Of course we know that is false. We are talking about the lessons from kane and abel, the prodigal son, the teachings of christ. These are philosophical ideas. It is different."

I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would believe parts of it and not others. If you understand that at least some of it is made up mumbo-jumbo then why believe any other part of it without checking into it? Who is kane, btw?

1/4/2013 8:58:46 AM

From the site that points out the problems with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and even the Quran, a book appears: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/thebook/index.html

The sample appears well-made: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110216886/Click-to-expand-The-Skeptic-s-Annotated-Bible-sample

1/9/2013 11:14:18 PM

New topic: reincarnation.

The thought that our actions in one life could change how we experience the world in the next is an interesting one. What I don't like about it is the lack of consciousness of the previous life. There is no sense of guilt or even awareness of what one could possibly be punished for, and therefor there is no real chance at redemption.

2/27/2013 5:46:12 PM

Wishful thinking, that's all that is. People don't want to just stop existing so they fabricate these ideas that death isn't the end and cling to them.

You don't have any consciousness of your previous life because you didn't have a previous life. You didn't have any brain or other types of cells before your parents conceived you. You simply did not exist, and at some point you will stop existing.

I don't want to die tonight, but I've long since accepted that it's coming and I'm ok with that. I didn't hate not existing for billions of years before I existed so I doubt I'll care for billions of years after.

Quote :

"redemption"

Redemption from what, exactly?

2/27/2013 7:11:32 PM

To apply it specifically to the caste system, if you messed up in one life you would be punished in the next by being put lower on the ladder. But if you have no knowledge of what you did wrong, then you can never make up for it.

Punishment means nothing without the understanding of why.

2/27/2013 7:40:19 PM