independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 22nd Jul 2018 9:01pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Typical incoherent babble about the Bible--from the left.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 7 1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/14/17 11:23am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Typical incoherent babble about the Bible--from the left.

Typical of my people, not my christian people:

https://www.alternet.org/...tter-bible

Sure, the bible is incoherent at times, but most of it is truly complex and there is a truth about the words, if they are true or not. The bible is not history it is myth mixed with allogory mixed with man's search for his place in a dark world. Most of the bible is very loving and preaches social justice. The bad parts even have a meaning, but is a small part of the overall whole.

Like Islamic radicals fundamentalist Christians just don't actually read the text correctly.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/15/17 5:28am

Dasein

I'm hoping the Bible goes the way that the Epic of Gilgamesh went very soon.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/15/17 8:27am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Then morality will die.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/19/17 5:03am

Dasein

2freaky4church1 said:

Then morality will die.


If biblical morality dies as a result, good riddance.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/19/17 5:47am

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Then morality will die.

so you're saying 4 billion people who do not care about the bible as their guiding light for morals are immoral? wow. just wow.

this typcial FUCKED UP arrogance and claiming of monopoly on truth is what makes large parts of your group such a disgusting dispicable bunch. good riddance indeed


2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/19/17 11:18am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Look at how evil the world is.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/19/17 2:06pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Typical of my people, not my christian people:

https://www.alternet.org/...tter-bible

Sure, the bible is incoherent at times, but most of it is truly complex and there is a truth about the words, if they are true or not. The bible is not history it is myth mixed with allogory mixed with man's search for his place in a dark world. Most of the bible is very loving and preaches social justice. The bad parts even have a meaning, but is a small part of the overall whole.

Like Islamic radicals fundamentalist Christians just don't actually read the text correctly.

.

Having been a survivor of childhood sexual abuse through a non-evangelical church (the local Anglican diocese) and being involved with Australian Royal Commission into the Institutional response to childhood sexual abuse, I agree that the article is incoherent babble.

.

The article says "Moore’s behavior may actually—at least in part—derive from his bibliolatry and that bibliolatry, generally, sucks. Worship Iron Age texts and you get Iron Age behavior". Paedophiles are not created by the Bible, they do what they do despite what God teaches. Sure the fundamentalists evangelicals are obsessed with the Old Testament prophecies and not enough on the teachings of love, equality and social justice by Jesus. However, they are not hell bent (pun intended) on replicating the worst things written about in the Bible because they worship the Bible.

.

People like Moore are driven by what I believe is an obsessive mental illness. They misuse organisations that allow themselves to be misused. This includes churches but in Moore's case it clearly includes the Republican Party and all those people defending him for religio-political reasons. In Australia Moore would have been disendorsed by either major party long before the election and, given that electorate, his replacement would have probably been elected instead of the opposition's candidate. It is a self-inflicted wound by the Republicans.

[Edited 12/19/17 14:08pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/20/17 12:23am

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Look at how evil the world is.

if all the 2 billion Christians would be "good" and the other 4 billions "bad" then you'd have a point

but otherwise the topic really says it all: Typical incoherent babble about the Bible--from the left

but at least you admit it, hehe

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/20/17 5:16am

Dasein

2freaky4church1 said:

Look at how evil the world is.


Didn't the Bible play some part in helping to create that reality?

You don't necessarily need the Bible to teach morality for there are plenty of nations and peoples
on the planet who didn't have access to it yet developed moral systems anyways.

When I rejected my Christianity, I didn't become a profligate, reckless, immoral degenerate who
abandoned hope, meaning, and love altogether. So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the
restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . .

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/20/17 12:06pm

IanRG

Dasein said:



2freaky4church1 said:


Look at how evil the world is.




Didn't the Bible play some part in helping to create that reality?

You don't necessarily need the Bible to teach morality for there are plenty of nations and peoples
on the planet who didn't have access to it yet developed moral systems anyways.

When I rejected my Christianity, I didn't become a profligate, reckless, immoral degenerate who
abandoned hope, meaning, and love altogether. So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the
restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . .


.
If God is how we were taught by Jesus, then there is nothing more immoral than trying to get others to turn away from God. Those without restraint who are unconstrained is a good definition of those without morals. Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral.
[Edited 12/20/17 12:07pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 12/20/17 12:19pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You all need to read Karen Armstrong.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 12/20/17 5:47pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Didn't the Bible play some part in helping to create that reality?

You don't necessarily need the Bible to teach morality for there are plenty of nations and peoples
on the planet who didn't have access to it yet developed moral systems anyways.

When I rejected my Christianity, I didn't become a profligate, reckless, immoral degenerate who
abandoned hope, meaning, and love altogether. So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the
restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . .


If
God is how we were taught by Jesus, then there is nothing more immoral than trying to get others to turn away from God. Those without restraint who are unconstrained is a good definition of those without morals. Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral. [Edited 12/20/17 12:07pm]


There is nothing I said in my post that asks Freaky to turn away from God, Ian. I asked him to
turn away from the Bible and I asked him to turn away from religion (I meant, to be specific, re-
ligion of the organized persuasion). And those who are unconstrained and without restraint intel-
lectually can still be moral creatures.

And, that's a pretty big fucking "If" you have there, friend.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 12/20/17 5:50pm

Dasein

2freaky4church1 said:

You all need to read Karen Armstrong.


No.

You need to read Karen Kilby's work on Rahner and stop reading all of these Christian goofs you're
always talking about (Cornel West, CS Lewis, and that other fat English fuck whose name I can't re-
call at the moment, ah yes, GK Chesterton).





[Edited 12/20/17 17:50pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/20/17 5:50pm

Dasein

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/21/17 1:13am

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

Dasein said:
If
God is how we were taught by Jesus, then there is nothing more immoral than trying to get others to turn away from God. Those without restraint who are unconstrained is a good definition of those without morals. Having said that I do NOT think that only Christians can be moral. [Edited 12/20/17 12:07pm]


There is nothing I said in my post that asks Freaky to turn away from God, Ian. I asked him to
turn away from the Bible and I asked him to turn away from religion (I meant, to be specific, re-
ligion of the organized persuasion). And those who are unconstrained and without restraint intel-
lectually can still be moral creatures.

And, that's a pretty big fucking "If" you have there, friend.

.

You said and I quote "So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . ."

.

You did not ask him to turn away from the just Bible but "religion".

.

My If is no bigger than the if God is how we were taught through the Prophet etc. The point stands - Evangelising your agnosticism to sway others away from their beliefs is immoral. Constraining what you want unconstrained and without restraint to just a person's intellect and not the whole of a person's mind (which INCLUDES their conscience and morals) is just stating the obvious and not discussing what was being discussed - morals. Freeing your mind is more than freeing just your intellect. Even within this, you have not shown is that "religion" prevents a person from having a unconstrained intellect.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/21/17 5:29am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


There is nothing I said in my post that asks Freaky to turn away from God, Ian. I asked him to
turn away from the Bible and I asked him to turn away from religion (I meant, to be specific, re-
ligion of the organized persuasion). And those who are unconstrained and without restraint intel-
lectually can still be moral creatures.

And, that's a pretty big fucking "If" you have there, friend.

.

You said and I quote "So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . ."

.

You did not ask him to turn away from the just Bible but "religion".

.

My If is no bigger than the if God is how we were taught through the Prophet etc. The point stands - Evangelising your agnosticism to sway others away from their beliefs is immoral. Constraining what you want unconstrained and without restraint to just a person's intellect and not the whole of a person's mind (which INCLUDES their conscience and morals) is just stating the obvious and not discussing what was being discussed - morals. Freeing your mind is more than freeing just your intellect. Even within this, you have not shown is that "religion" prevents a person from having a unconstrained intellect.


You don't do a good job of drawing connections when you read posts here, Ian. What does my
very first post say?


I'm hoping the Bible goes the way that the Epic of Gilgamesh went very soon.


Why do I hope that? Because I desire people, and Freaky, to turn away from it (it being a book
whose existence as a classic which ought to contribute forcefully to our culture is no longer neces-
sary). But, my point remains: you were fucking wrong. I never asked Freaky to turn away from
God. And, it makes no sense for you to follow up your "If" about the New Testament with an "If"
about the Old Testament in response to me pointing out how glaringly conditional "if" is as a word.

You don't think clearly: me suggesting to religious people that (1) religion can shackle you intel-
lectually and (2) you don't need the Bible to be moral whilst never asking Freaky to turn away from
God is not immoral. Your efforts to cast me as being so appears to ironically reveal what I'm
arguing for: some religious people stupidly think God can ONLY be found and worshipped and ap-
preciated and communed with in a religious context. And then villifying those who would suggest
religious people would benefit intellectually and existentially by abandoning their organized faith
system and the attending books yet never suggesting abandoning the devotion and object of worship
by calling us "immoral" is really just too dumb . . . you are not thinking clearly.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/21/17 1:24pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:


You don't do a good job of drawing connections when you read posts here, Ian. What does my
very first post say?


I'm hoping the Bible goes the way that the Epic of Gilgamesh went very soon.


Why do I hope that? Because I desire people, and Freaky, to turn away from it (it being a book
whose existence as a classic which ought to contribute forcefully to our culture is no longer neces-
sary). But, my point remains: you were fucking wrong. I never asked Freaky to turn away from
God. And, it makes no sense for you to follow up your "If" about the New Testament with an "If"
about the Old Testament in response to me pointing out how glaringly conditional "if" is as a word.

You don't think clearly: me suggesting to religious people that (1) religion can shackle you intel-
lectually and (2) you don't need the Bible to be moral whilst never asking Freaky to turn away from
God is not immoral. Your efforts to cast me as being so appears to ironically reveal what I'm
arguing for: some religious people stupidly think God can ONLY be found and worshipped and ap-
preciated and communed with in a religious context. And then villifying those who would suggest
religious people would benefit intellectually and existentially by abandoning their organized faith
system and the attending books yet never suggesting abandoning the devotion and object of worship
by calling us "immoral" is really just too dumb . . . you are not thinking clearly.

.

Why, when anyone points out your errors, do you always attack the person and can never address what you erroneously said? Why does it always result in you believing that everyone else simply does not have the mental capacity to understand you? It is why people stop responding to you.

.

You are making leaps and assumptions about my post that are making you believe I am not thinking clearly. Nothing I said shows I did not know what you were saying. Indeed I was repeating your very words to show I understood what you said and you have clarified it being in line with what I understood.

.

Your "defense" is ironically inconsistent. What I said was "If God is how we were taught by Jesus, then there is nothing more immoral than trying to get others to turn away from God." Jesus taught about God and religion being integral - indeed the objective is that the Church and us will be one with God. He taught from within the point of view of organised religion. This means asking someone to turn away from God's Church is the same as asking someone to away from God. The point I was making about the ISLAMIC Prophet (Not the Old Testament) is exactly the same - God and religion are one and same to a Muslim. That they are not to some others, whilst understood by me, is irrelevant to my comment.

.

I have said many times before that I believe there are different paths to God - specifically to you on many of those occurences. Part and parcel of these different paths is that it is immoral to seek to evanglise your path as somehow superior to Freaky's.

.

Instead of assuming and attacking all the time, you will get more people having intellectual discussions with you if you seek to discuss things intellectually.

[Edited 12/21/17 13:54pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/21/17 2:25pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

.

Why, when anyone points out your errors, do you always attack the person and can never address what you erroneously said? Why does it always result in you believing that everyone else simply does not have the mental capacity to understand you? It is why people stop responding to you.

.

You are making leaps and assumptions about my post that are making you believe I am not thinking clearly. Nothing I said shows I did not know what you were saying. Indeed I was repeating your very words to show I understood what you said and you have clarified it being in line with what I understood.

.

Your "defense" is ironically inconsistent. What I said was "If God is how we were taught by Jesus, then there is nothing more immoral than trying to get others to turn away from God." Jesus taught about God and religion being integral - indeed the objective is that the Church and us will be one with God. He taught from within the point of view of organised religion. This means asking someone to turn away from God's Church is the same as asking someone to away from God. The point I was making about the ISLAMIC Prophet (Not the Old Testament) is exactly the same - God and religion are one and same to a Muslim. That they are not to some others, whilst understood by me, is irrelevant to my comment.

.

I have said many times before that I believe there are different paths to God - specifically to you on many of those occurences. Part and parcel of these different paths is that it is immoral to seek to evanglise your path as somehow superior to Freaky's.

.

Instead of assuming and attacking all the time, you will get more people having intellectual discussions with you if you seek to discuss things intellectually.

[Edited 12/21/17 13:54pm]


Oh please . . . nobody has stopped responding to me. My posting style has not changed since
2002 yet here you are replying to me, so stop being so dramatic.

"If God is how you were taught by Jesus" reveals that the truth of the claim remains contingent
and is hardly definitive: that is all I was suggesting by pointing out that it is a "big if".

Asking people to turn away from religion is not the same as asking people to turn away from God
which is what you claimed I was doing (but, I was not). God has not established any church on this
planet - people have established churches in God's name. Stop associating (your) church necessarily
with God. And, asking people to get rid of their Bibles is not the same as asking people to get
rid of their faith or trust in God. Stop associating the Bible necessarily with God. Yet, if you under-
stand that there is more than just one path to God that doesn't necessarily go through the Bible or
religion, then why are you reacting so strongly against my posts? Oh, I know why: you're a Chris-
tian who adheres to the Bible and you go to church - that's why you're reacting so strongly against
what I've said in this thread although you're now saying that fundamentally you agree with me:

I have said many times before that I believe there are different paths to God


Yay! So, getting rid of your Bible and leaving behind your religion doesn't mean that you still can't
worship God. Thanks for agreeing with me yet finding a way to waste my time, Ian.

I never implied that the intellectual freedoms I associate with agnosticism is superior - that is your
reading of my post and not what I intended or ever said. I certainly asserted it (it being not asso-
ciating with any particular worldview) is freer, but superior? Nope - you're putting words in my mouth
again.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/21/17 4:26pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:


Oh please . . . nobody has stopped responding to me. My posting style has not changed since
2002 yet here you are replying to me, so stop being so dramatic.

"If God is how you were taught by Jesus" reveals that the truth of the claim remains contingent
and is hardly definitive: that is all I was suggesting by pointing out that it is a "big if".

Asking people to turn away from religion is not the same as asking people to turn away from God
which is what you claimed I was doing (but, I was not). God has not established any church on this
planet - people have established churches in God's name. Stop associating (your) church necessarily
with God. And, asking people to get rid of their Bibles is not the same as asking people to get
rid of their faith or trust in God. Stop associating the Bible necessarily with God. Yet, if you under-
stand that there is more than just one path to God that doesn't necessarily go through the Bible or
religion, then why are you reacting so strongly against my posts? Oh, I know why: you're a Chris-
tian who adheres to the Bible and you go to church - that's why you're reacting so strongly against
what I've said in this thread although you're now saying that fundamentally you agree with me:

I have said many times before that I believe there are different paths to God


Yay! So, getting rid of your Bible and leaving behind your religion doesn't mean that you still can't
worship God. Thanks for agreeing with me yet finding a way to waste my time, Ian.

I never implied that the intellectual freedoms I associate with agnosticism is superior - that is your
reading of my post and not what I intended or ever said. I certainly asserted it (it being not asso-
ciating with any particular worldview) is freer, but superior? Nope - you're putting words in my mouth
again.

.

Sure, that most people habitually vacate a thread once you start your "you're stupid" defense has never happened at any time in the last 15 years!

.

Whether Jesus' teaching or the Prophet's teaching is contentious is irrelevant. You know Freaky accepts one of these. You know that practicing Christians or Muslims accept this. The point is Jesus teaches and the Prophet taught belief and worship of God as inexorably linked to organised religion. Therefore to seek such a person to deny their religion to free their mind is seeking to deny God as they believe God to be. If they believe in a god or gods subsequent to this, then this is not the same belief. You preached against organised religion and not just the prime book of one of these - I can quote you again to show this if necessary. You are asking people to turn away from organised religion and, therefore, away from God. This is my point - Provide a convincing argument that there is no connection between Jesus' teaching on religion and God, whilst leaving God, as Jesus taught and then you have made a point we can discuss.

.

If you think I am associating the Bible necessarily with God, then you are doing what you falsely accused me of - The reason I raised Islamic beliefs is because I was not responding to your your anti-Bible post, but your anti-religion post. Christanity is not the Bible, the author of article in the OP makes this same mistake - people do not worship the Bible, they worship God.

.

The reason I am discussing your post is that it evangelised your path to God as superior to Freaky's and suggested that he convert to your's. This is my point, not your assumptions about my point: We both believe that there are different paths for different people to God. This includes paths that involve organised religions and scriptural texts. You argued that you would like one of these to die out: the one you know Freaky follows. At what point do you believe that this allowed for organised Christianity to be not seen as inferior to your liberated, free, unconstained and unrestrained beliefs?

.

The only reading I have made about how you argued that your beliefs are superior is that you said " So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . . ". The only words I putting in your mouth are the words you typed.

[Edited 12/21/17 16:34pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/21/17 5:03pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

.

Sure, that most people habitually vacate a thread once you start your "you're stupid" defense has never happened at any time in the last 15 years!

.

Whether Jesus' teaching or the Prophet's teaching is contentious is irrelevant. You know Freaky accepts one of these. You know that practicing Christians or Muslims accept this. The point is Jesus teaches and the Prophet taught belief and worship of God as inexorably linked to organised religion. Therefore to seek such a person to deny their religion to free their mind is seeking to deny God as they believe God to be. If they believe in a god or gods subsequent to this, then this is not the same belief. You preached against organised religion and not just the prime book of one of these - I can quote you again to show this if necessary. You are asking people to turn away from organised religion and, therefore, away from God. This is my point - Provide a convincing argument that there is no connection between Jesus' teaching on religion and God, whilst leaving God, as Jesus taught and then you have made a point we can discuss.

.

If you think I am associating the Bible necessarily with God, then you are doing what you falsely accused me of - The reason I raised Islamic beliefs is because I was not responding to your your anti-Bible post, but your anti-religion post. Christanity is not the Bible, the author of article in the OP makes this same mistake - people do not worship the Bible, they worship God.

.

The reason I am discussing your post is that it evangelised your path to God as superior to Freaky's and suggested that he convert to your's. This is my point, not your assumptions about my point: We both believe that there are different paths for different people to God. This includes paths that involve organised religions and scriptural texts. You argued that you would like one of these to die out: the one you know Freaky follows. At what point do you believe that this allowed for organised Christianity to be not seen as inferior to your liberated, free, unconstained and unrestrained beliefs?

.

The only reading I have made about how you argued that your beliefs are superior is that you said " So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . . ". The only words I putting in your mouth are the words you typed.

[Edited 12/21/17 16:34pm]


Wait: do people vacate threads after I call them stupid or have people stopped responding to me?
Which one is it?

I never said my agnosticism as a worldview or as an intellectual scaffolding for viewing reality was
superior to Freaky - stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was freer than religion. But, I know
you're posting style: you'll keep reiterating that I am making a value judgment here based upon
what is superior even though I'm telling you I'm not - and you'll do it just to despite me. How chris-
tianly of you.

In asking people to turn away from organized religion, I am not asking people to turn away from
God. I am asking them to turn away from organized religion's depiction and understanding of God.

In asking people to turn away from the Bible, I am not asking people to turn away from God. I am
asking people to turn away from the Bible's depiction and understanding of God.

Yep! I want the Bible to die out so that people stop appealing to it for their morality, ethics, and their
conception of God.

See ya later, Ian!


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/21/17 5:14pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

Sure, that most people habitually vacate a thread once you start your "you're stupid" defense has never happened at any time in the last 15 years!

.

Whether Jesus' teaching or the Prophet's teaching is contentious is irrelevant. You know Freaky accepts one of these. You know that practicing Christians or Muslims accept this. The point is Jesus teaches and the Prophet taught belief and worship of God as inexorably linked to organised religion. Therefore to seek such a person to deny their religion to free their mind is seeking to deny God as they believe God to be. If they believe in a god or gods subsequent to this, then this is not the same belief. You preached against organised religion and not just the prime book of one of these - I can quote you again to show this if necessary. You are asking people to turn away from organised religion and, therefore, away from God. This is my point - Provide a convincing argument that there is no connection between Jesus' teaching on religion and God, whilst leaving God, as Jesus taught and then you have made a point we can discuss.

.

If you think I am associating the Bible necessarily with God, then you are doing what you falsely accused me of - The reason I raised Islamic beliefs is because I was not responding to your your anti-Bible post, but your anti-religion post. Christanity is not the Bible, the author of article in the OP makes this same mistake - people do not worship the Bible, they worship God.

.

The reason I am discussing your post is that it evangelised your path to God as superior to Freaky's and suggested that he convert to your's. This is my point, not your assumptions about my point: We both believe that there are different paths for different people to God. This includes paths that involve organised religions and scriptural texts. You argued that you would like one of these to die out: the one you know Freaky follows. At what point do you believe that this allowed for organised Christianity to be not seen as inferior to your liberated, free, unconstained and unrestrained beliefs?

.

The only reading I have made about how you argued that your beliefs are superior is that you said " So Freaky, liberate your mind and remove the restraints and constraints that is religion and live your life freely . . . ". The only words I putting in your mouth are the words you typed.

[Edited 12/21/17 16:34pm]


Wait: do people vacate threads after I call them stupid or have people stopped responding to me?
Which one is it?

I never said my agnosticism as a worldview or as an intellectual scaffolding for viewing reality was
superior to Freaky - stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was freer than religion. But, I know
you're posting style: you'll keep reiterating that I am making a value judgment here based upon
what is superior even though I'm telling you I'm not - and you'll do it just to despite me. How chris-
tianly of you.

In asking people to turn away from organized religion, I am not asking people to turn away from
God. I am asking them to turn away from organized religion's depiction and understanding of God.

In asking people to turn away from the Bible, I am not asking people to turn away from God. I am
asking people to turn away from the Bible's depiction and understanding of God.

Yep! I want the Bible to die out so that people stop appealing to it for their morality, ethics, and their
conception of God.

See ya later, Ian!


.

Sorry, I nearly missed this post as it was buried in amongst all the people posting in response to you.

.

The only words I put in your mouth are the ones you typed. It would have been nice for you to have responded to when I asked "At what point do you believe that [your preaching] allowed for organised Christianity to be not seen as inferior to your liberated, free, unconstained and unrestrained beliefs?"

.

It would have been nice if you addressed my comments on the inexorable link argument between Jesus' teaching on God and religion.

.

It is clear you cannot and will not discuss what I said and are just reiterating the same lines over and over. Other than your words confirming what I said, this has achieved nothing.

[Edited 12/22/17 1:05am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 12/22/17 3:14pm

IanRG

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Wait: do people vacate threads after I call them stupid or have people stopped responding to me?
Which one is it?

I never said my agnosticism as a worldview or as an intellectual scaffolding for viewing reality was
superior to Freaky - stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was freer than religion. But, I know
you're posting style: you'll keep reiterating that I am making a value judgment here based upon
what is superior even though I'm telling you I'm not - and you'll do it just to despite me. How chris-
tianly of you.

In asking people to turn away from organized religion, I am not asking people to turn away from
God. I am asking them to turn away from organized religion's depiction and understanding of God.

In asking people to turn away from the Bible, I am not asking people to turn away from God. I am
asking people to turn away from the Bible's depiction and understanding of God.

Yep! I want the Bible to die out so that people stop appealing to it for their morality, ethics, and their
conception of God.

See ya later, Ian!


.

Sorry, I nearly missed this post as it was buried in amongst all the people posting in response to you.

.

The only words I put in your mouth are the ones you typed. It would have been nice for you to have responded to when I asked "At what point do you believe that [your preaching] allowed for organised Christianity to be not seen as inferior to your liberated, free, unconstained and unrestrained beliefs?"

.

It would have been nice if you addressed my comments on the inexorable link argument between Jesus' teaching on God and religion.

.

It is clear you cannot and will not discuss what I said and are just reiterating the same lines over and over. Other than your words confirming what I said, this has achieved nothing.

.

I know it is easier for you to say people don't understand you if they don't agree with you or that they just being stubborn if they ask for a justification of something like after arguing for why your beliefs are superior (without actually saying your beliefs are superior) that you are not saying they are superior. However, these are serious questions.

.

To rephrase, putting aside that you alternated between being specifically anti-Bible and generally anti-organised religion - How do you learn about God by rejecting both?

.

Rather than relying on the argument that, after you asked others to abandon their beliefs and replace them with your's because your's are more liberated, freer, unconstrained and unrestrained and the other person's are based on a book you want relegated to fiction and not to be used to ever guide people again - how on earth can you say none this means you believe your beliefs are superior? How is it a reasonable argument to say "I'm telling you I'm not" saying my beliefs are superior?

[Edited 12/23/17 11:21am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 12/23/17 2:46am

toejam

avatar

The Bible is propaganda, for the most part. I've heard it described as the ancient equivalent to "fake news". I don't think that's too far off the mark.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 12/23/17 7:00am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Even Hitchens loved the Bible. It sure helped Prince's music.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 12/23/17 11:18am

IanRG

toejam said:

The Bible is propaganda, for the most part. I've heard it described as the ancient equivalent to "fake news". I don't think that's too far off the mark.

.

A good working definition of "Fake News" is factual, true and accurate news that Trump, Fox News, Breitbart and their supporters choose to deny where their denial lacks any logic or reasonable basis but they feel they must deny it because it does not support their extremist far-right ideological agenda, so they simply tag is as "fake" without any supporting rational argument.

.

I agree with you - I don't think your post is too far off that style of ideologically-driven mark.

[Edited 12/23/17 11:21am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 12/23/17 1:13pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

It sure helped Prince's music.

.

Helped or hindered? I think the latter. Prince's (admittedly inconsistent and sporadic) devotion to "the Bible" had him slandering homosexuality, promoting the 'theocratic order' (Yahweh > Man > Woman), preaching that evolution was a lie to control the masses with a colonized mind, etc.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 12/23/17 1:18pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

A good working definition of "Fake News" is factual, true and accurate news that Trump, Fox News, Breitbart and their supporters choose to deny where their denial lacks any logic or reasonable basis but they feel they must deny it because it does not support their extremist far-right ideological agenda, so they simply tag is as "fake" without any supporting rational argument.

.

Maybe my understanding of the term isn't quite right then...
.
Let me try again...

.

The Bible is propaganda, for the most part. Most of its "historical" books are full of stuff that probably didn't happen, written by people with their own ideological agendas living generations after the events they proport to narrate.

.

[Edited 12/23/17 13:27pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 12/23/17 1:37pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality. It seems to condemn greed and being part of the global empire far more. Sodom and Gomorrah are mostly about cities that are evil, all forms of evil; compare it to Nazi germany.

According to John Spong Paul was a closeted gay man. You know how was "warring in his members," that bit.

Jesus forgave the woman at the well. He wrote the sins of others in the sand.

Most of the book derives from an oral tradition. Big back then.

-----

Not talking about the JW's who are a sick cult. Remember Let's Go Crazy was a hidden message about God and the Devil. Even Captain knows that.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 12/23/17 1:39pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Sounds pretty judgemental. Grin.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 12/23/17 1:49pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

A good working definition of "Fake News" is factual, true and accurate news that Trump, Fox News, Breitbart and their supporters choose to deny where their denial lacks any logic or reasonable basis but they feel they must deny it because it does not support their extremist far-right ideological agenda, so they simply tag is as "fake" without any supporting rational argument.

.

Maybe my understanding of the term isn't quite right then...
.
Let me try again...

.

The Bible is propaganda, for the most part. Most of its "historical" books are full of stuff that probably didn't happen, written by people with their own ideological agendas living generations after the events they proport to narrate.

.

[Edited 12/23/17 13:27pm]

.

This simply does not apply to the New Testament.

.

The article in the OP seeks to argue that Moore was inspired to be a paedaphile by the Bible - Do you agree with this?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 7 1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Typical incoherent babble about the Bible--from the left.