Religious Tolerance & Religious Moderation Are a Joke

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay...I get you now. You just worded it as a demand for negative proof in the original post.

 

I didn't take you out of context.

 

You said, "you can't prove it's not true."

 

You meant, "just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true."

[Mike wanna be 0]

Another thought:

If we all came from Adam & Eve...why are there people that aren't white?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Man, this thread has veered off topic.

[Brett Favre 0]

Okay...I get you now. You just worded it as a demand for negative proof in the original post.

 

I didn't take you out of context.

 

You said, "you can't prove it's not true."

 

You meant, "just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true."

 

Yes. So can that name be rescinded now?

 

This thread is arguing like 20 different things.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Another thought:

If we all came from Adam & Eve...why are there people that aren't white?

 

Impure byproduct of incenst.

[Guest]

I don't hate people because they're gay. That's not what the Bible teaches. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I don't care whether or not a person is a homosexual.

 

Well, sin is bad, right? And an affront to God? So, from your perspective, what would be the optimum outcome for a homosexual? Conversion?

To live their life as best as they can. Nobody's perfect. If you're a homosexual, but you still follow God's ways and accept Jesus as your savior, what does your sexuality matter? It doesn't to me.

 

What I bolded is a reference to the Old Testament, and more specifically the things stated in Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is the Old Covenant. Does that render everything said in there dead, not necessarily. The New Testament is the New Covenant. NOT what is said in Leviticus. Seriously guys, what's so hard to understand.

 

This is very disputed among Biblical scholars, King. So your claim to to have the final say on it can't stand.

 

More importantly, it's disputed among Christians in general, as some obviously believe that a great deal of Old Testament law is still applicable.

That's just what I believe. But there is also a reason that the Old Testament is called the Hebrew Bible, as well.

[Jingus 0]

Another thought:

If we all came from Adam & Eve...why are there people that aren't white?

Better question, considering we're talking about the original Middle Easterners and how whitey is really a numerical minority on this planet: if we all came from Adam & Eve, why are there people that ARE white?

 

 

It would require Jingus to be in possession of a functioning brain.

 

And no, I'm not saying that because he's not a Christian, he's an idiot. I think he's an idiot regardless of his religious beliefs.

I was dragged to church every week for the first fifteen years of my life. (And it never made sense. Of course, it was Church of Christ...) You know what finally made me stop going? People like you.

 

King: the Bible doesn't preach against homosexuality.

Jingus: sure it does. ::provides concrete examples::

K: well, those were First Edition rules, they don't count.

J: um, did ya miss these? ::points out Paul and others blatantly condemning gays::

K: you took it out of context. You have to read the whole thing.

J: I have. Please provide logical arguments to refute what the book itself says.

K: YOUR STOOPID. (And you have to believe the Bible in order to believe the Bible!)

 

 

And don't even get me into the argument about Biblical fallibility. The entire story of Noah's ark is one massive hole in the plot, as it's completely impossible to happen in real life. Also, if it's so infallible, why can't current scholars even agree on one correct translation for the original text? And what about all those books that the Council of Nicea kinda mostly arbitrarily decided weren't scripture, because... well, because they said so? And you didn't address any of the various factual contradictions and just plain silly shit that I brought up here and here.

 

 

I'm not anti-Christian, in basic theory. I think that the world would be a MUCH better place if people lived more by Jesus's teachings than not. But when they insist on bringing in all the stupid side bullshit too, nothing turns me off quicker.

[Guest]

Like I said, I don't think you're an idiot because of what you've said in this thread. I've always thought you were a fucking moron.

 

I don't go to church, and I'm not going to talk to you again. So please, don't waste your time with a response.

 

If you did happen to possess a functioning brain, you would have taken the fucking hint the last time you posted something and I didn't respond. So please, get the last word in, I'll laugh at you and we'll be done.

[Jingus 0]

Jingus: here's a nice long logical argument.

King: YOUR STOOPID.

 

My IQ tests at 150. How 'bout yours? And as long as I'm making pointless comparisons, I bet my phallus is infinity billions times larger too.

[Henry Spencer 0]

Okay, this has gone on long enough. Is everybody satisfied yet? Good, let's just leave this thread alone.

 

Jingus posting his intelligence test scores is a fine finale.

[Gary Floyd 0]

This thread so far in a nutshell:

 

bigolsmitty: I sure don't like religion! Here's why I think it's nothing but trouble!

Ripper and several others: You're just generalizing.

Invader3k: God hates fags. It says so.

Cena's Writer: I believe the Bible is the word of God.

Gary Floyd: Hey everybody, a G.I. Joe spoof! Oh, and I don't agree with creationism, and I also made a William Burroughs reference! Here's a wacky picture I found on the internet! (BOING!)

bigolsmitty: I'm an Athiest!

King: You're stupid Jingus!

Jingus: You're stupid King!

Coat: Ok, this has gone on far enough.

 

Moral of the story: arguing about religion, especially on the internet, accomplishes nothing.

[MrRant 0]

It would if we could use to find and then eliminate the non-believers.

[Guest George's Box]

My IQ tests at 150. How 'bout yours?

I can't explain why, but I had to start singing the opening bars to "Ain't That a Kick in the Head" when I read this. It's like my leitmotif for unbridled stupidity.

[Jingus 0]

Aw cmon, I thought my claim of an infinity billion times bigger dick was way more ridiculous.

[Guest George's Box]

Aw cmon, I thought my claim of an infinity billion times bigger dick was way more ridiculous.

[World's Worst Man 0]

It is greatly upsetting to me that I'm not even a blip on gary floyd's radar. May Jupiter smite you and yours.

 

*throws a resin bag grenade*

[Mike wanna be 0]

You and me both, WWM.

[Guest Vitamin X]

My IQ tests at 150. How 'bout yours?

 

I'm younger than you and yet I live on my own, and have a car. Oh, and I run an upstart production company which is getting some business while still in college.

 

Fuck your IQ test.

 

EDIT: I still like your Reb ass anyways, Jingy, even if the rest of DMC doesn't.

[Jingus 0]

Oh, I never claimed to be a good person. I just get pissed whenever someone calls me dumb. Say I'm a loser, broke, pretentious, argumentative, overly opinionated, arbitrarily judgemental, chain-smoking, Tussin-addled, pudgy, balding, faithless, a mama's boy, half sociopathic, borderline schizophrenic, clumsy, unconsensually celebate, compulsively masturbatory, generally creepy, and that I dig crazy fat chicks, and I'll probably just agree and then mutter something about how my 7.5 inches of throbbing thunder makes it all irrelevant. But call me stupid, and I get angrily defensive, it's a weird kneejerk response.

 

DMC= Democratic... uh... something? Actually I'm not a conservative, I'm mostly independent with a bizarrely wide range of views on various political topics, teeter-tottering from left to right like a recent divorcee after last call at the club on Ladies Night. I get mistakenly lumped in with the GOP by association with the rabid rethuglikkkans in the CE folder of my board, mostly.

 

Also, production company? Watcha produce?

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm a filmmaker, although most of my work recently has been towards doing instructional/sports recruiting videos. It's more or less something to get experience for now, although work has been steady enough that I only need a minimal amount of hours from my school's graduate/faculty multimedia lab to keep me happy.

 

DMC = Danny Maff Clique. Look at the TSM wiki for an explanation. Hell, I think you'll find a bunch of rather interesting stuff there: http://tsmpedia.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

[Jingus 0]

Heh... never saw that before. Lotsa... interesting stuff. (Gee, you think whoever did my entry was a wee bit biased? Then again... damn near everybody's is almost equally negative.) Also, New Millinium Blues closed? Awww.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Intelligent design is the worst thing ever. How can it be acceptable to say that god set things in motion in a science class? God can't be experimented upon. Furthermore, it's contradictory in the theological sense when the bible clearly states how things came about. It's fundamentally faulty on either side of the coin.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Intelligent design is the worst thing ever. How can it be acceptable to say that god set things in motion in a science class? God can't be experimented upon. Furthermore, it's contradictory in the theological sense when the bible clearly states how things came about. It's fundamentally faulty on either side of the coin.

I agree. Religion asks you to believe in things you can't see or prove. Science asks you to prove things you can or can't see. The two don't mix well.

 

Jingus, the fallibility of the Bible can be argued forever. When it comes to Apocryphal books, remember that they were editing. Just like with any other book. Except they were inspired by God in their editing. Even if you don't believe that, you have to agree that the Bible forms a pretty clear message, Revelations being the exception. If you read some of the Apocryphal books, like the books of Enoch for example, you see pretty clearly why they weren't included.

 

As for the Skeptics Annotated Bible stuff, PM me one or two things and I can give you explanations for it. (no need to muck up the thread further)

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I'm a filmmaker, although most of my work recently has been towards doing instructional/sports recruiting videos. It's more or less something to get experience for now, although work has been steady enough that I only need a minimal amount of hours from my school's graduate/faculty multimedia lab to keep me happy

 

What films have you made, out of curiousity? Do you have a website or anything? I'd be interested to learn more about the company.

[Jingus 0]

Intelligent design is the worst thing ever. How can it be acceptable to say that god set things in motion in a science class? God can't be experimented upon. Furthermore, it's contradictory in the theological sense when the bible clearly states how things came about. It's fundamentally faulty on either side of the coin.

If the intelligent design supporters just wanted science teachers to mention "and some people think that the universe was created by some sort of sentient higher power, though there's not much proof for that", I'd have no trouble with it. My contempt starts when they demand "and many people know that the universe was created by Jehova because the infallible Bible says so". If they took the Yahweh-centric monotheism out of the intelligent demand stuff, it might almost sound reasonable; lord knows our universe's laws of physics are so screwy that sometimes it does seem like someone created them on purpose. A someone with a strange sense of humor who was drunk at the time.

 

Jingus, the fallibility of the Bible can be argued forever... As for the Skeptics Annotated Bible stuff, PM me one or two things and I can give you explanations for it. (no need to muck up the thread further)

Oh yeah, it's the original debate that does not end. I love it. As for the SAB, it's just my easy go-to link whenever this arguement pops up. Sure, a lot of the stuff they mention can be explained away, but I've yet to meet anyone (except maybe Milky, oddly enough) who can refute every one of 'em.

 

When it comes to Apocryphal books, remember that they were editing. Just like with any other book. Except they were inspired by God in their editing. Even if you don't believe that, you have to agree that the Bible forms a pretty clear message, Revelations being the exception. If you read some of the Apocryphal books, like the books of Enoch for example, you see pretty clearly why they weren't included.

Except I don't think they were inspired by God at all. Looking at the books they chose vs. the ones they didn't, it seemed like they had a fairly rigid political agenda to me. Enoch doesn't make any sense, you're right, but it seems like they kicked out Mary Magdeline just because, well, she lacked a penis. (And no, Dan Brown didn't teach me these beliefs, I knew this stuff long before I ever read DaVinci Code.)

 

And the Bible never seemed like it formed one clear message to me. I always thought it seemed like a somewhat haphazard collection of scraps and teachings by a wide variety of very different people with very different opinions and motivations. My favorite example: Leviticus. The way that book rambles on and on about sin and abomination, I almost expect it to demand the execution by stoning of anyone who sneezes and doesn't get a "bless you" from anyone.

 

The last dead horse I'll beat: if it's infallible, if the editors were guided by God, then why do we have the King James version, the New King James version, the International version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard edition, so forth and so on? Which one is the 100% legitimate Endorsed By God version? Problem is, they ALL claim that.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm a filmmaker, although most of my work recently has been towards doing instructional/sports recruiting videos. It's more or less something to get experience for now, although work has been steady enough that I only need a minimal amount of hours from my school's graduate/faculty multimedia lab to keep me happy

 

What films have you made, out of curiousity? Do you have a website or anything? I'd be interested to learn more about the company.

 

Mostly films I've made at school. The client I regularly work with that has a website (a good portion of my edited videos are on there) http://www.bluechipsports.com/ but I'm still in the process of finding a web designer who actually knows what the hell they're doing to help me set up a website. I plan to make it pretty simple, yet professional, and preferably no flash because I hate that shit and think it's used far too gratuitously in today's web design world. I take a Google-esque approach to things in that regard: less is more.

 

Like I said, it's an upstart thing, I barely have any equipment outside of my editing software, and marketing/business sense. I'm pretty resourceful with finding people to work with though, so I have a few guys- music, sound, and videographers- who I work with regularly and who I can call on to help out. I'll probably put the link in my sig once I have the site up and running, so look for that later on.

 

EDIT: I did work, however, as a production assistant on Miami Vice with a friend of mine when I was at the arts school in Miami. And I know a lot of people who've worked on big features down there because of the connections through my school (Miami International University of Art & Design- Formerly known as International Fine Arts College).

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Intelligent design is the worst thing ever. How can it be acceptable to say that god set things in motion in a science class? God can't be experimented upon. Furthermore, it's contradictory in the theological sense when the bible clearly states how things came about. It's fundamentally faulty on either side of the coin.

If the intelligent design supporters just wanted science teachers to mention "and some people think that the universe was created by some sort of sentient higher power, though there's not much proof for that", I'd have no trouble with it. My contempt starts when they demand "and many people know that the universe was created by Jehova because the infallible Bible says so". If they took the Yahweh-centric monotheism out of the intelligent demand stuff, it might almost sound reasonable; lord knows our universe's laws of physics are so screwy that sometimes it does seem like someone created them on purpose. A someone with a strange sense of humor who was drunk at the time.

 

I agree with that, Jingus. It's not like Christians are the only ones who believe in divine influence in creation. Muslims do, as do several other religions.

Jingus, the fallibility of the Bible can be argued forever... As for the Skeptics Annotated Bible stuff, PM me one or two things and I can give you explanations for it. (no need to muck up the thread further)

Oh yeah, it's the original debate that does not end. I love it. As for the SAB, it's just my easy go-to link whenever this arguement pops up. Sure, a lot of the stuff they mention can be explained away, but I've yet to meet anyone (except maybe Milky, oddly enough) who can refute every one of 'em.

 

I could try. But that would take forever and a day, really. Frankly, I don't want to do that.

When it comes to Apocryphal books, remember that they were editing. Just like with any other book. Except they were inspired by God in their editing. Even if you don't believe that, you have to agree that the Bible forms a pretty clear message, Revelations being the exception. If you read some of the Apocryphal books, like the books of Enoch for example, you see pretty clearly why they weren't included.

Except I don't think they were inspired by God at all. Looking at the books they chose vs. the ones they didn't, it seemed like they had a fairly rigid political agenda to me. Enoch doesn't make any sense, you're right, but it seems like they kicked out Mary Magdeline just because, well, she lacked a penis. (And no, Dan Brown didn't teach me these beliefs, I knew this stuff long before I ever read DaVinci Code.)

 

That's what I meant when I said you'd have to be open to the Christian point of view. I haven't read all of the Apocryphal books, but most of the ones I have read were left out with good reason. If you believed in the inspired by God thing, you could say that some of them, like Enoch, were left out because they would obviously be proven false by science in our modern day. Unless someone thinks they can find angels holding bags of wind at the four corners of the Earth. If so, I've got great beachfront property here in Tennessee to sell them.

 

And the Bible never seemed like it formed one clear message to me. I always thought it seemed like a somewhat haphazard collection of scraps and teachings by a wide variety of very different people with very different opinions and motivations. My favorite example: Leviticus. The way that book rambles on and on about sin and abomination, I almost expect it to demand the execution by stoning of anyone who sneezes and doesn't get a "bless you" from anyone.

 

To me, the Bible has two distinct themes. The Old Testament is showing you what lead to the need for a Saviour, and the New Testament is showing you who the saviour is and what He believed. Even I get irritated with some of the books, especially with some of Paul's writing. Which is ironic, as he writes the majority of the New Testament.

 

Also, remember that Leviticus is actually Jewish law. It's like reading legal briefings. I'm sure that lawyers sometimes get the same feeling.

 

The last dead horse I'll beat: if it's infallible, if the editors were guided by God, then why do we have the King James version, the New King James version, the International version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard edition, so forth and so on? Which one is the 100% legitimate Endorsed By God version? Problem is, they ALL claim that.

That's because they're ALL the Bible. Most of the Biblical scholars I've talked to, and I've talked to a lot since I went to a Christian college, agree that the New Revised Standard is the most accurate translation available. Mostly because it's based off of the oldest manuscripts you could find. Most of the difference comes in how things are worded. Unless you have something that's based of the Byzantine texts, then there's lots of "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" instead of just "Jesus." Thank some monks for that. There are those out there that claim that the King James is the only true version, but that's ridiculous. It's a translation. That's like me saying that my printing of The Count of Monte Cristo is the only real version, even though it's in English. I would just look into the people doing the translation. There are some who've done the translation with a political agenda instead of going for accuracy. I myself can't remember exactly which ones, though.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

And with that, I feel like I've made the longest post on the board since Milky's thread proving the Bible

[Jingus 0]

...and I got nothin'. Everything you said was pretty damn reasonable, and even the stuff I disagreed with would lead into such a ridiculously long and detailed episode of hair-splitting that there's no point even going there.

[Guest panthermatt7]

Intelligent design is the worst thing ever. How can it be acceptable to say that god set things in motion in a science class? God can't be experimented upon. Furthermore, it's contradictory in the theological sense when the bible clearly states how things came about. It's fundamentally faulty on either side of the coin.

If the intelligent design supporters just wanted science teachers to mention "and some people think that the universe was created by some sort of sentient higher power, though there's not much proof for that", I'd have no trouble with it. My contempt starts when they demand "and many people know that the universe was created by Jehova because the infallible Bible says so". If they took the Yahweh-centric monotheism out of the intelligent demand stuff, it might almost sound reasonable; lord knows our universe's laws of physics are so screwy that sometimes it does seem like someone created them on purpose. A someone with a strange sense of humor who was drunk at the time.

 

I agree with that, Jingus. It's not like Christians are the only ones who believe in divine influence in creation. Muslims do, as do several other religions.

Jingus, the fallibility of the Bible can be argued forever... As for the Skeptics Annotated Bible stuff, PM me one or two things and I can give you explanations for it. (no need to muck up the thread further)

Oh yeah, it's the original debate that does not end. I love it. As for the SAB, it's just my easy go-to link whenever this arguement pops up. Sure, a lot of the stuff they mention can be explained away, but I've yet to meet anyone (except maybe Milky, oddly enough) who can refute every one of 'em.

 

I could try. But that would take forever and a day, really. Frankly, I don't want to do that.

When it comes to Apocryphal books, remember that they were editing. Just like with any other book. Except they were inspired by God in their editing. Even if you don't believe that, you have to agree that the Bible forms a pretty clear message, Revelations being the exception. If you read some of the Apocryphal books, like the books of Enoch for example, you see pretty clearly why they weren't included.

Except I don't think they were inspired by God at all. Looking at the books they chose vs. the ones they didn't, it seemed like they had a fairly rigid political agenda to me. Enoch doesn't make any sense, you're right, but it seems like they kicked out Mary Magdeline just because, well, she lacked a penis. (And no, Dan Brown didn't teach me these beliefs, I knew this stuff long before I ever read DaVinci Code.)

 

That's what I meant when I said you'd have to be open to the Christian point of view. I haven't read all of the Apocryphal books, but most of the ones I have read were left out with good reason. If you believed in the inspired by God thing, you could say that some of them, like Enoch, were left out because they would obviously be proven false by science in our modern day. Unless someone thinks they can find angels holding bags of wind at the four corners of the Earth. If so, I've got great beachfront property here in Tennessee to sell them.

 

And the Bible never seemed like it formed one clear message to me. I always thought it seemed like a somewhat haphazard collection of scraps and teachings by a wide variety of very different people with very different opinions and motivations. My favorite example: Leviticus. The way that book rambles on and on about sin and abomination, I almost expect it to demand the execution by stoning of anyone who sneezes and doesn't get a "bless you" from anyone.

 

To me, the Bible has two distinct themes. The Old Testament is showing you what lead to the need for a Saviour, and the New Testament is showing you who the saviour is and what He believed. Even I get irritated with some of the books, especially with some of Paul's writing. Which is ironic, as he writes the majority of the New Testament.

 

Also, remember that Leviticus is actually Jewish law. It's like reading legal briefings. I'm sure that lawyers sometimes get the same feeling.

 

The last dead horse I'll beat: if it's infallible, if the editors were guided by God, then why do we have the King James version, the New King James version, the International version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard edition, so forth and so on? Which one is the 100% legitimate Endorsed By God version? Problem is, they ALL claim that.

That's because they're ALL the Bible. Most of the Biblical scholars I've talked to, and I've talked to a lot since I went to a Christian college, agree that the New Revised Standard is the most accurate translation available. Mostly because it's based off of the oldest manuscripts you could find. Most of the difference comes in how things are worded. Unless you have something that's based of the Byzantine texts, then there's lots of "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" instead of just "Jesus." Thank some monks for that. There are those out there that claim that the King James is the only true version, but that's ridiculous. It's a translation. That's like me saying that my printing of The Count of Monte Cristo is the only real version, even though it's in English. I would just look into the people doing the translation. There are some who've done the translation with a political agenda instead of going for accuracy. I myself can't remember exactly which ones, though.

 

Well said. I wish more Christians would examine the Bible from a historical perspective. (including the church where I work)