What really matters to the Judeo-Christian God

Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2011, 12:04 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
M_P, I would love it if at some point you started parodying your hammer on walnut posting style. Just don't tell us and see if we catch it. You posted an 8 bullet list ALONG with other content on a troll. That amuses me, and not necessarily in a negative way at that.


Given that I watched a 10 minute, 47 second video where someone spouted such dumbass lines as "the way to reduce false executions is to execute lawyers for perjury", I had to let off steam.

Image


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

29 Aug 2011, 9:56 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Maybe this atheist (as identified by his video) should actually learn the bible instead of just reading it.


I'm willing to bet that most of the various atheists who helped out with the"an atheist reads the bible" series have probably done more critical reading and analysis of the Bible than you have.

cw10 wrote:
It's not a flashy video, doesn't have goofy music that fits the maturity of a 6 year old, but he speaks the gospel properly.


Funny, the music in that series certainly doesn't seem very 6 year old-ish, whereas the content, tone, and lame-ass theme music at the end of your video seems more like the type of crap a Sunday School teacher would give to five year olds.

cw10 wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-IL80qn348[/youtube]


Wow, I just spent nearly 11 minutes (longer than my video) watching a video that, if I'm being generous, is relevant to the 0.5% (30 seconds) of material in my video where the guy makes asides about how trigger happy OT believers have been over the years. I think those were certainly meant in jest, are definitely tangential to the main point of the video, as already stated take up very little time, and were aimed at people who think the KJV is the literal world of God. If you want a bit more critical Bible reading, let me just say using other parts of the bible to interpret a section of the bible is next to useless, as the bible had multiple authors with differing agendas.

cw10 wrote:
I expect to get a lot of criticism for this response which is expected. The truth hurts.


Here's a better set of explanations for why people will probably criticize your reponse.

  • It was nearly eleven minutes of mostly irrelevant material.
  • You chatised a well made video as being geared towards six year olds, then posted a crappy, simplistic video.
  • The video's claims of an increasingly unsafe society due to a failure to follow the "stone gays and adulterers" morality of the filfthy Bible and Christo-Fascists is flat out ludicrious. In developed nations, income equality and the legalization of abortion have had a greater effect on homicides than the death pentalty.
  • Incidentally, that man is wrong about most Christians interpreting the Bible as barring the death penalty, if the tremendous amounts of support for State Exectuions in the hyper-religious death south are any indication. He might be right about Catholics, though.
  • Many secular countries without death penalties have lower murder rates than murderous Christian America. The cop out of the death penalty not being "immediate enough" is pretty lame, if someone hears about someone being executed today for a murder committed 20 years ago, the prospect of being killed over murder would probably still stay in their minds. The dog analogy fails, as you're harming the dog to teach it a lesson, not to teach other dogs a lesson.
  • The "check" against abuses - namely killing Prosecutors for perjury as a deterrant to wrongful convictions/executions - is obscene given how hard perjury would be to prove on top of the fact that not all false executions result from perjury - some are the result of honest mistakes.
  • And, on top of that, why doesn't god just strike down murderers (as this lame ass fundie pseudo-scholar claims he assuredly doesn't and instead delegates that responsibility to fallible humanity)? It'd be a hell of a lot surer a way of executing only the guilty, given Yawheh's infallibility (something prosecutors lack).
  • Lastly, you're likely to be called on in this thread as your post confirms a pattern - you staying stupid crap (like "Popper was a Nutvu Marxist) - that seems to indicate a lack of finer mental faculities. In addition, rank stupidity is generally quite annoying.


cw10 wrote:
Go ahead, lash out, it's what some people do best as exampled by the OP's video post.


Given that you probably stopped watching the video after the first 50 seconds, I really doubt you're qualified to comment on it.


All of your points are incorrect.

I watched the entire video and it's consistent with a proper interpretation of the bible on one key point. It's the most common point and it's the asiest to find. Something is always lost in translation.

I didn't read more than 25% of your mindless prattle however.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,985

29 Aug 2011, 10:12 am

Okay - look - make it easy for the old Prof.

Watching the video does not for me work.

So - WHAT is the key point consistent with the scriptures, and what do YOU see as appropriate Bible interpretation?



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

29 Aug 2011, 11:09 pm

Philologos wrote:
Okay - look - make it easy for the old Prof.

Watching the video does not for me work.

So - WHAT is the key point consistent with the scriptures, and what do YOU see as appropriate Bible interpretation?


I will endeavor to do so.

I'll start with the second [part of the] question first.

One of the first things you learn, or should learn when you study a religion, or religion in general is to never take the text as it's written literally. I come from a Jewish background, and the meaning of some words used or how they're used in the Torah aren't always clear. There's literally books and books of commentaries written about the meanings of every single passage in the hebrew bible, and arguments from people all through history debating the meaning. Most of the time, you're left with the text, the commentaries and debates, and you're left to form an opinion. Most if not all the of Torah is interpreted through public opinion because everyone see's things from a different angle. The idea of the Torah is, this is an example, make the best of it.

What I find amusing about (most) religion, and there are some exceptions, is not the fact they get it right, it's the fact most of the followers don't. The keepers of the religions (priests, rabii's e.g.) are usually quite studied, read all the monotheistic versions, commentaries and what not and form their own opinions.

The part that bugs me about so called studious atheists is THEY don't have a proper understanding of religion despite their claims they "know the book better than the followers do". Maybe in a literal sense they do, but they miss the point completely much like the bible thumpers.

They both sound the same to me, so I really don't get the chest thumping of who's better than who.

To answer the first part of the question, the only consistency in religion is the inconsistency of the knowledge base of the general population who follow it, and the people who don't. The only people you'll get a well studied answer to any religious question is from someone who studies it without prejudice. Atheist isn't without prejudice in this context because unanswerable questions cannot by definition have a definitive answer, but OP's video post claims to know it all despite his general ignorance.

I think there's something to be said about America's doctrine on religion also. In America there is no state religion, but that doesn't mean there's no religion in the state. The founders did put references to a creator in the declaration, it was not because they were forced into it, but because they wanted to make sure to be explicitly vague, as to not to endorse one particular religion.

Having the ten commandments in or around courts is merely a nod to the religious contribution to law.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Lastly, you're likely to be called on in this thread as your post confirms a pattern - you staying stupid crap (like "Popper was a Nutvu Marxist) - that seems to indicate a lack of finer mental faculities. In addition, rank stupidity is generally quite annoying.


Yeah I say a lot of stupid crap, I stir the pot to find out who's a zealot and who isn't. I also call bullshit when I see it. I don't lay in it and make bullshit angels.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,985

30 Aug 2011, 3:08 pm

cw10 wrote:

I will endeavor to do so.

I'll start with the second [part of the] question first.

One of the first things you learn, or should learn when you study a religion, or religion in general is to never take the text as it's written literally. I come from a Jewish background, and the meaning of some words used or how they're used in the Torah aren't always clear. There's literally books and books of commentaries written about the meanings of every single passage in the hebrew bible, and arguments from people all through history debating the meaning. Most of the time, you're left with the text, the commentaries and debates, and you're left to form an opinion. Most if not all the of Torah is interpreted through public opinion because everyone see's things from a different angle. The idea of the Torah is, this is an example, make the best of it.

What I find amusing about (most) religion, and there are some exceptions, is not the fact they get it right, it's the fact most of the followers don't. The keepers of the religions (priests, rabii's e.g.) are usually quite studied, read all the monotheistic versions, commentaries and what not and form their own opinions.

The part that bugs me about so called studious atheists is THEY don't have a proper understanding of religion despite their claims they "know the book better than the followers do". Maybe in a literal sense they do, but they miss the point completely much like the bible thumpers.

They both sound the same to me, so I really don't get the chest thumping of who's better than who.

........


Thankee - it gets fustrating when people rabbit chicken on about videos I have no key into.

It is sadly true that may of the antitheists do not really know what they are talking about. But that is, as you say, in part because a large number of the pew warmers have only a minimal and often distorted understanding themselves. Which unfortunately includes the staff and student body, pastors to be, of many a seminary.

It helps to have been a lifelong researcher and skeptic. It made me a better atheist [I was never an antitheist] and makes me a better theist.