(05-04-2012 10:12 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 08:35 AM)FmrMarine Wrote:  It is disingenuious to pick and choose which parts you accept and ignore the parts that are violent, misogynist and just plain wrong based on known and accepted science. It is quite clear the book was written by primitive bronze age men - not inspired by an almighty creator of everything.

Probably so.

Part of the issue here is changing the way we read Scripture.

For most fundamentalists it is either the KJV1611 or NOTHING.
A few fundamentalists admit that there is no translation that can be considered as definitive, but hold on to a 66-book canon as God's canon.

Have you read Fowler's "Stages of Faith"? (It is not an easy read.) Bottom line: The Christian church is populated with believers at different stages. Some people need to have a source that is defined as inerrant and infallible. Others -in the same church- can handle some, but not too much doubt. Yet others keep their opinions to themselves because they do not want to confuse people with their Unitarian beliefs. All Christians!!!

Few fundamentalists have REALLY looked, seriously, at the Jesus Seminar, which, believe it or not, is a group of CHRISTIANS. (Not according to most Fundamentalist apologists.)

Now, about picking and choosing what parts to believe and which to ignore, this is not only a time-honored tradition going back to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper" line, but it is actually the way our brain works.

It is a problem for those who want to CONTROL the message.

Either way.

(05-04-2012 10:33 AM)FmrMarine Wrote:  It doesn't have to be infallible, but shouldn't it at least be sort of accurate? At least a little? If the only "Christian" message you claim is love your neighbor and don't be an asshole then there are plenty of religions that advocate that. Why choose Christianity or any religion for that matter. Just be kind to people.

(05-04-2012 11:46 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  Shouldn’t it be accurate?

Not really. We continue to read the African folk stories of Ananzi the spider, because they contain much wisdom. Same with the Navajo “Thunder Twins.” Or the Mayan “Popol Vuh.."

(05-04-2012 10:29 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  probably so... What?

Quote:if what is written is bullshit then it aint going to matter which way you read the damn thing

(05-04-2012 12:22 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 10:29 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  probably so... What?

Probably so: We do cherry pick and it was written by ancient primitives and factually inaccurate.

Quote:if what is written is bullshit then it aint going to matter which way you read the damn thing

Shakespeare did not claim inerrancy. And yet I am floored at how accurate he portrays human emotions that have not changed over hundreds of years.

The decision is not between "Infallible Word of God" or "Bullshit."

The Myth of Gilgamesh is Bullshit. And yet, it is a great read! Moses, or whoever wrote the Torah plagiarized the Flood Myth from Gilgamesh. It is the same Flood Myth. Are we to accept one and throw out the other one?

Can't we all get along?

It is a problem if you want to claim that Moses' version is Infallible while the version written a thousand years earlier is Bullshit.

You know, the worst part of this discussion is that it is the exact same discussion that Jesus was butting heads with the Pharisees about. The Pharisees kept coming back, over and over with examples of trick questions, where the traditional view of "following the Law" would get Jesus into trouble. Over and over Jesus responded: "You just don't get it."

(05-04-2012 11:53 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  What a laugh. Always count on a religionist for being good entertainment if not for anything else at all.

(05-04-2012 12:49 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:  The problem with Christianity isn't just the claim of access to god, it's the claim of eternal life. ... Surely you understand that Christians don't read the bible the way an English student reads Shakespeare.

(05-06-2012 12:56 AM)Naomi Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 11:53 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  What a laugh. Always count on a religionist for being good entertainment if not for anything else at all.

Chill out. Don't be an asshole. Ricardo has great points.

(05-04-2012 12:49 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:  The problem with Christianity isn't just the claim of access to god, it's the claim of eternal life. ... Surely you understand that Christians don't read the bible the way an English student reads Shakespeare.

False. You need to meet more Christians, I think. There are those who neither believe in eternal life nor read the bible any differently from other literature.

Larger comment: There are many ways to not believe. This space is big enough for all of them. I don't think anyone should be trying to tell other people what to believe and why (including nonbeliefs!); we can only tell other people to explore what works best for them as we did for ourselves. Let's avoid making fun of anyone or making personal attacks.

(05-06-2012 10:18 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  mine at the moment happens to be calling out bullshit when i see it.

(05-06-2012 10:24 AM)Naomi Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 10:18 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  mine at the moment happens to be calling out bullshit when i see it.

I think you mean making uncalled for personal attacks on people who happens to believe differently than you. .

Quote: I hate it when people do that and then identify as non-religious. Feel like it reflects poorly on anyone who doesn't believe

(05-06-2012 10:40 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  If someone comes up to me and says, with a straight face, that he was abducted just the night before last by an alien team of special agents that then proceeded to shove a probe up his ass; am i not entitled to have a good laugh at his expense?

(05-06-2012 10:40 AM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  anyone who feels that non-theism is an identity, group or club doesnt understand it at all. My actions are my own