The Evolution Fail/Religion Hijack Thread

[andy7171]

I like upsetting you...

But you're the one talking bullshi!t Joe... Just own it - or throw it out
But the dancing backwards only makes the whole thing look stupid

Last I looked something like 38% of American Christians still believe in Genesis - and it's 2018

I love all of Cleets mini lectures on God and Christianity.

For a guy who claims that nobody knows what God wants, you sure do tell everyone what God wants.

He's reached omnipotency. God doesn't have to bless him. He blesses himself.

However, believing the earth is only 6000 years old is insanity beyond spandos equity.

[Chizzang]

Have you read the New Testament..?
Maybe we should start there because you sound confused

I may have read it in between Mass every week growing up, or at youth groups or those years between 1993-2001 that I was in Catholic school. Maybe i've read it once or twice.

I'm not confused. It's my opinion. The Bible is a history book. Stories like Moses parting the Red Sea are, in my opinion, an allegorical lesson. It's not that it actually happened, it's that God will save you and will literally move the seas to help you escape trouble - as long as you have faith in him.

Besides, i'm talking about THE BIBLE, that's the OT and NT. Regardless, both are still history books. Sacred texts, scripture. If you believe, sure. The Gospels are biographies of Jesus. Acts is a history book of the early Church.

One of my favorite pastors, Father Patat would always say that the point of the Bible isn't to necessarily say that God did something - it's to prove what God can do and will do to those that believe.

It's my opinion. Don't like it?...ignore it.

I think there is absolutely room for a revisionist history view of the Bible like you're expressing here
that makes it easier for those that want to keep it relevant and up to date
and it's an excellent fall back position for a debate

The question then becomes: Well what parts really happened and what is allegorical fiction then..?
Is there really any way a person could construe the books of Paul as allegory..?

The whole thing basically breaks down under any "logical reasonable" examination
So... you're notion that Logic and Reason should be applied to The Books of the Bible
is maybe not your strongest point of departure for a debate

I would stick with "Faith Alone" and move on...
There is no debate to be had under faith criteria
but there is a huge debate to be had if you want to talk about logic reason and bible

[Ibanez]

I may have read it in between Mass every week growing up, or at youth groups or those years between 1993-2001 that I was in Catholic school. Maybe i've read it once or twice.

I'm not confused. It's my opinion. The Bible is a history book. Stories like Moses parting the Red Sea are, in my opinion, an allegorical lesson. It's not that it actually happened, it's that God will save you and will literally move the seas to help you escape trouble - as long as you have faith in him.

Besides, i'm talking about THE BIBLE, that's the OT and NT. Regardless, both are still history books. Sacred texts, scripture. If you believe, sure. The Gospels are biographies of Jesus. Acts is a history book of the early Church.

One of my favorite pastors, Father Patat would always say that the point of the Bible isn't to necessarily say that God did something - it's to prove what God can do and will do to those that believe.

It's my opinion. Don't like it?...ignore it.

I think there is absolutely room for a revisionist history view of the Bible like you're expressing here
that makes it easier for those that want to keep it relevant and up to date
and it's an excellent fall back position for a debate

The question then becomes: Well what parts really happened and what is allegorical fiction then..?
Is there really any way a person could construe the books of Paul as allegory..?

The whole thing basically breaks down under any "logical reasonable" examination
So... you're notion that Logic and Reason should be applied to The Books of the Bible
is maybe not your strongest point of departure for a debate

I would stick with "Faith Alone" and move on...
There is no debate to be had under faith criteria
but there is a huge debate to be had if you want to talk about logic reason and bible

All good points and something i'll think about.


And I would add that revisionist history isn't a dirty word (not that you are implying it but I know people think it's a dirty word). It isn't. Revising history is how we get to truly understand something and begin removing the bias that is inherent in the interpretations. Revising history only gets bad when we try to explain some terrible thing or forget something exist, like those Lost Cause freaks.

[Ibanez]

The books of the Bible were written and chosen for inclusion to present a picture of Christianity and convert people. Certain books were chosen/discarded depending on how mortal like or God-like Jesus appeared. Certain books didn't fit in with the overall theme, but present different aspects of Jesus or his humanity.

The books were written and chosen by flawed humans.

Cue JoltinJoe to say there are divinely inspired and there for 100% truthful.

Whew! Thank you. I was afraid you were going to say it was written to oppress women, for I've heard that many times.

I don't think it was written with that purpose, but keeping in mind the context of who and when it was written, there are plenty of things in the bible that are in that same vein. There are certainly laws that give men power over women.

[JoltinJoe]

I think there is absolutely room for a revisionist history view of the Bible like you're expressing here
that makes it easier for those that want to keep it relevant and up to date
and it's an excellent fall back position for a debate

The question then becomes: Well what parts really happened and what is allegorical fiction then..?
Is there really any way a person could construe the books of Paul as allegory..?

The whole thing basically breaks down under any "logical reasonable" examination
So... you're notion that Logic and Reason should be applied to The Books of the Bible
is maybe not your strongest point of departure for a debate

I would stick with "Faith Alone" and move on...
There is no debate to be had under faith criteria
but there is a huge debate to be had if you want to talk about logic reason and bible

There you go again pontificating on matters you know nothing about. There is nothing "revisionist" about the way Mark interprets scripture. Even the Jews of ancient times (at least most of them) did not read the Torah literally. If there is a "revisionist" way of reading the Torah/Bible, it is to read it literally -- an interpretative tradition that really only started as part of the Protestant reformation and which has taken a hold in American Evangelism.

Truth be told, you won't find a Catholic or a Reformed Jew who believe the world is 6,000 years old. And the vast majority of Conservative Jews don't believe that either.

Among ancient Jews, it was widely accepted that the Torah contained levels of truths that could not be properly understood without benefit of the "Oral Torah" -- an historical tradition of oral instruction concerning the multi-faceted truths to be ascertained from the Torah. So if one read the Torah literally, one was misconstruing it. This study of the Torah gave rise to the Talmud -- a collection of the written interpretative analysis of thousands of distinguished rabbis going back thousands of years. So these questions about what in scripture is literal, and what is allegorical, have long been addressed it in the Oral Torah and the Talmud.

People who pick up Genesis and read it literally do so without regard to the traditional way of reading it. Reading it literally (without regard to the Oral Torah and the Talmud) is revisionist.

[Chizzang]

I think there is absolutely room for a revisionist history view of the Bible like you're expressing here
that makes it easier for those that want to keep it relevant and up to date
and it's an excellent fall back position for a debate

The question then becomes: Well what parts really happened and what is allegorical fiction then..?
Is there really any way a person could construe the books of Paul as allegory..?

The whole thing basically breaks down under any "logical reasonable" examination
So... you're notion that Logic and Reason should be applied to The Books of the Bible
is maybe not your strongest point of departure for a debate

I would stick with "Faith Alone" and move on...
There is no debate to be had under faith criteria
but there is a huge debate to be had if you want to talk about logic reason and bible

There you go again pontificating on matters you know nothing about. There is nothing "revisionist" about the way Mark interprets scripture. Even the Jews of ancient times (at least most of them) did not read the Torah literally. If there is a "revisionist" way of reading the Torah/Bible, it is to read it literally -- an interpretative tradition that really only started as part of the Protestant reformation and which has taken a hold in American Evangelism.

Truth be told, you won't find a Catholic or a Reformed Jew who believe the world is 6,000 years old. And the vast majority of Conservative Jews don't believe that either.

Among ancient Jews, it was widely accepted that the Torah contained levels of truths that could not be properly understood without benefit of the "Oral Torah" -- an historical tradition of oral instruction concerning the multi-faceted truths to be ascertained from the Torah. So if one read the Torah literally, one was misconstruing it. This study of the Torah gave rise to the Talmud -- a collection of the written interpretative analysis of thousands of distinguished rabbis going back thousands of years. So these questions about what in scripture is literal, and what is allegorical, have long been addressed it in the Oral Torah and the Talmud.

People who pick up Genesis and read it literally do so without regard to the traditional way of reading it. Reading it literally (without regard to the Oral Torah and the Talmud) is revisionist.

I love you so much !!!
All of that is interesting and also kind of irrelevant

Tennis without the net is fun when you're the one who decides point by point where the net is

You should write an instructional preface for the Bible so Americans will know how to read it
Because in vast numbers they keep coming to the conclusion it is the infallible word of god
and not an elaborate fictitious allegory designed to save their souls through half truths and nuance

[SeattleGriz]

There you go again pontificating on matters you know nothing about. There is nothing "revisionist" about the way Mark interprets scripture. Even the Jews of ancient times (at least most of them) did not read the Torah literally. If there is a "revisionist" way of reading the Torah/Bible, it is to read it literally -- an interpretative tradition that really only started as part of the Protestant reformation and which has taken a hold in American Evangelism.

Truth be told, you won't find a Catholic or a Reformed Jew who believe the world is 6,000 years old. And the vast majority of Conservative Jews don't believe that either.

Among ancient Jews, it was widely accepted that the Torah contained levels of truths that could not be properly understood without benefit of the "Oral Torah" -- an historical tradition of oral instruction concerning the multi-faceted truths to be ascertained from the Torah. So if one read the Torah literally, one was misconstruing it. This study of the Torah gave rise to the Talmud -- a collection of the written interpretative analysis of thousands of distinguished rabbis going back thousands of years. So these questions about what in scripture is literal, and what is allegorical, have long been addressed it in the Oral Torah and the Talmud.

People who pick up Genesis and read it literally do so without regard to the traditional way of reading it. Reading it literally (without regard to the Oral Torah and the Talmud) is revisionist.

I love you so much !!!
All of that is interesting and also kind of irrelevant

Tennis without the net is fun when you're the one who decides point by point where the net is

You should write an instructional preface for the Bible so Americans will know how to read it
Because in vast numbers they keep coming to the conclusion it is the infallible word of god
and not an elaborate fictitious allegory designed to save their souls through half truths and nuance

How can he decide where the net is if there is no net?

More psuedo intellectual clap trap.

[CID1990]

I love you so much !!!
All of that is interesting and also kind of irrelevant

Tennis without the net is fun when you're the one who decides point by point where the net is

You should write an instructional preface for the Bible so Americans will know how to read it
Because in vast numbers they keep coming to the conclusion it is the infallible word of god
and not an elaborate fictitious allegory designed to save their souls through half truths and nuance

How can he decide where the net is if there is no net?

More psuedo intellectual clap trap.

*pseudo

therefore, Jesus

[JoltinJoe]

I love you so much !!!
All of that is interesting and also kind of irrelevant

Tennis without the net is fun when you're the one who decides point by point where the net is

You should write an instructional preface for the Bible so Americans will know how to read it
Because in vast numbers they keep coming to the conclusion it is the infallible word of god
and not an elaborate fictitious allegory designed to save their souls through half truths and nuance

How can he decide where the net is if there is no net?

More psuedo intellectual clap trap.

Forget it, he's rolling.

[JoltinJoe]

There you go again pontificating on matters you know nothing about. There is nothing "revisionist" about the way Mark interprets scripture. Even the Jews of ancient times (at least most of them) did not read the Torah literally. If there is a "revisionist" way of reading the Torah/Bible, it is to read it literally -- an interpretative tradition that really only started as part of the Protestant reformation and which has taken a hold in American Evangelism.

Truth be told, you won't find a Catholic or a Reformed Jew who believe the world is 6,000 years old. And the vast majority of Conservative Jews don't believe that either.

Among ancient Jews, it was widely accepted that the Torah contained levels of truths that could not be properly understood without benefit of the "Oral Torah" -- an historical tradition of oral instruction concerning the multi-faceted truths to be ascertained from the Torah. So if one read the Torah literally, one was misconstruing it. This study of the Torah gave rise to the Talmud -- a collection of the written interpretative analysis of thousands of distinguished rabbis going back thousands of years. So these questions about what in scripture is literal, and what is allegorical, have long been addressed it in the Oral Torah and the Talmud.

People who pick up Genesis and read it literally do so without regard to the traditional way of reading it. Reading it literally (without regard to the Oral Torah and the Talmud) is revisionist.

I love you so much !!!
All of that is interesting and also kind of irrelevant

Tennis without the net is fun when you're the one who decides point by point where the net is

You should write an instructional preface for the Bible so Americans will know how to read it
Because in vast numbers they keep coming to the conclusion it is the infallible word of god
and not an elaborate fictitious allegory designed to save their souls through half truths and nuance

What's so hard to understand?

You said Mark's way of reading scripture was "revisionist."

I showed people have read scripture in a non-literal sense going back to the ancient Jews.

Again, if there is a revisionist way of interpreting scripture, it is to always read it literally.

[houndawg]

Have you read the New Testament..?
Maybe we should start there because you sound confused

I may have read it in between Mass every week growing up, or at youth groups or those years between 1993-2001 that I was in Catholic school. Maybe i've read it once or twice.

I'm not confused. It's my opinion. The Bible is a history book. Stories like Moses parting the Red Sea are, in my opinion, an allegorical lesson. It's not that it actually happened, it's that God will save you and will literally move the seas to help you escape trouble - as long as you have faith in him.

Besides, i'm talking about THE BIBLE, that's the OT and NT. Regardless, both are still history books. Sacred texts, scripture. If you believe, sure. The Gospels are biographies of Jesus. Acts is a history book of the early Church.

One of my favorite pastors, Father Patat would always say that the point of the Bible isn't to necessarily say that God did something - it's to prove what God can do and will do to those that believe.

It's my opinion. Don't like it?...ignore it.

Actually there is a weather phenomenon that exists to this day that explains the "miracle". Same with the burning bush and water from a rock (I've seen that one live), and the one with the birds - all explained in a great read by the name of The Bible as History written by a scholar named Werner Keller.

[Ibanez]

I may have read it in between Mass every week growing up, or at youth groups or those years between 1993-2001 that I was in Catholic school. Maybe i've read it once or twice.

I'm not confused. It's my opinion. The Bible is a history book. Stories like Moses parting the Red Sea are, in my opinion, an allegorical lesson. It's not that it actually happened, it's that God will save you and will literally move the seas to help you escape trouble - as long as you have faith in him.

Besides, i'm talking about THE BIBLE, that's the OT and NT. Regardless, both are still history books. Sacred texts, scripture. If you believe, sure. The Gospels are biographies of Jesus. Acts is a history book of the early Church.

One of my favorite pastors, Father Patat would always say that the point of the Bible isn't to necessarily say that God did something - it's to prove what God can do and will do to those that believe.

It's my opinion. Don't like it?...ignore it.

Actually there is a weather phenomenon that exists to this day that explains the "miracle". Same with the burning bush and water from a rock (I've seen that one live), and the one with the birds - all explained in a great read by the name of The Bible as History written by a scholar named Werner Keller.

Yup, I am aware. The Nile still occasionally runs red. Which forces all the marine life out. Which then causes them to die in the fields. Which promotes disease and kills the livestock. Oh, and it kills those in those fields. Like first born sons.

[SeattleGriz]

How can he decide where the net is if there is no net?

More psuedo intellectual clap trap.

*pseudo

therefore, Jesus

Exactly. It's like he's some sort of moran!

[Chizzang]

I love you so much !!!
All of that is interesting and also kind of irrelevant

Tennis without the net is fun when you're the one who decides point by point where the net is

You should write an instructional preface for the Bible so Americans will know how to read it
Because in vast numbers they keep coming to the conclusion it is the infallible word of god
and not an elaborate fictitious allegory designed to save their souls through half truths and nuance

What's so hard to understand?

You said Mark's way of reading scripture was "revisionist."

I showed people have read scripture in a non-literal sense going back to the ancient Jews.

Again, if there is a revisionist way of interpreting scripture, it is to always read it literally.

Joe,
You're arguing a hilarious point
when played out resolves the Bible into a highly modified train wreck
where only the highly sanctified club members get to decide what really happened

Taking a wax pencil and circling the real parts and then highlighting the allegory parts

Okay here's the real stuff (probably)
and here's the fake stuff
but some of the real stuff is now fake stuff
and some of the fake stuff might have actually happened so just leave an asterisk there

In the end you're absolutely holding a pile of bullsh!t
with liner notes and asterisks and scribbles with arrows pointing over here and there



But yes... I'm the stupid one

[Ibanez]

How can he decide where the net is if there is no net?

More psuedo intellectual clap trap.

*pseudo

therefore, Jesus

I love Jesus memes

[∞∞∞]

[CID1990]

*pseudo

therefore, Jesus

I love Jesus memes

I love that last one

It suggests that a Semitic eastern Mediterranean looked like something other than a Semitic eastern Mediterranean

while making fun of the idea that he looked European


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbackjon]

Joe, you could have just said, "No, Clitz... Christianity has not been dancing madly backwards for 400 years, it is more like 1700 years."

That wouldn't be true either. It has never been Catholic doctrine that Genesis is to be read literally. Now, prior to Augustine, some accepted Genesis literally. That would true. But most always read Genesis allegorically -- as did many Jews at the time of Christ.

Which would make sense, since Jesus, as a Jew, used allegory for many of his teachings.

I've never had a single Bible literalist been able to explain why Jewish Jesus, steeped in Jewish traditions, seemed to invent allegorical teaching out of thin air.

[dbackjon]

The New Testament abolished the rule of law of the Old Testament. Those laws are kaput.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah... I’ve heard that. If that were so, we wouldn’t have Christians trying to hang up those useless 10 Commandments everywhere. Hell, my neighbor 5 houses down has a statue in his front yard, easily 4 ft high, with those commandment.

If those laws were “kaput”, slavers wouldn’t have used Exodus as a way to justify slavery.

If those laws were “kaput”, Christians wouldn’t be trotting out OT laws to condemn homosexuals and justify discrimination.

Yet, for laws that are supposedly “kaput” they are trotted out an awful lot- by both church leaders and lay people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just the ones they agree with. While they put on their mixed cloth shirt, take their menstrating thrice-divorced wife to Red Lobster for all you can eat shellfish

[dbackjon]

What's so hard to understand?

You said Mark's way of reading scripture was "revisionist."

I showed people have read scripture in a non-literal sense going back to the ancient Jews.

Again, if there is a revisionist way of interpreting scripture, it is to always read it literally.

Joe,
You're arguing a hilarious point
when played out resolves the Bible into a highly modified train wreck
where only the highly sanctified club members get to decide what really happened

Taking a wax pencil and circling the real parts and then highlighting the allegory parts

Okay here's the real stuff (probably)
and here's the fake stuff
but some of the real stuff is now fake stuff
and some of the fake stuff might have actually happened so just leave an asterisk there

In the end you're absolutely holding a pile of bullsh!t
with liner notes and asterisks and scribbles with arrows pointing over here and there



But yes... I'm the stupid one

You should know better than to argue with a Jesuit Lawyer.

[Ibanez]

Do you know why eggs are apart of Easter? Go educate yourself, it’s interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

The New Testament abolished the rule of law of the Old Testament. Those laws are kaput.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jesus remains a liberal, peace and neighbor loving, socialist hippie?

Cool! I like that guy!

He also hated sin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

The New Testament abolished the rule of law of the Old Testament. Those laws are kaput.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah... I’ve heard that. If that were so, we wouldn’t have Christians trying to hang up those useless 10 Commandments everywhere. Hell, my neighbor 5 houses down has a statue in his front yard, easily 4 ft high, with those commandment.

If those laws were “kaput”, slavers wouldn’t have used Exodus as a way to justify slavery.

If those laws were “kaput”, Christians wouldn’t be trotting out OT laws to condemn homosexuals and justify discrimination.

Yet, for laws that are supposedly “kaput” they are trotted out an awful lot- by both church leaders and lay people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your total lack of spiritual knowledge is amazing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

[
But yes... I'm the stupid one

[Chizzang]

But yes... I'm the stupid one

I knew we could find some common ground...