Christianity exposed

[DinoDoc]

They could always break into the sacrificial wine.

[KrazyHorse]

Sacramental wine?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Sacramental wine?

Mea culpa.

[Logical Realist]

I found this interesting:

Fellow atheist Yanster:

Go to Google and search for "violence religion". You get 866,000 hits. Put in "violence atheism" -- you get 20,200.

[MikeH]

Are you implying that the pope should integrate an S&M component to his shows?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
Are you implying that the pope should integrate an S&M component to his shows?

I think that would limit the audience too much. Not everyone is into S&M, you know. Maybe he could let the nuns go at it for a while to spice up his shows.

[Kaak]

this was the most perfect threadjacking i think i have ever seen...

[MikeH]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I think that would limit the audience too much. Not everyone is into S&M, you know. Maybe he could let the nuns go at it for a while to spice up his shows.

That would help with the other problem, pregnant nuns. I'm assuming they wouldn't be allowed any contraception. Either that or they'll have a high turnover of nuns.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Christianity exposed

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Sirotnikov:

Hi

Keep in mind this: The Bible is supposed to be(and the Torah) the word of God. You aren't supposed to pick and choose what scriptures you obey.

Keep in mind this: you aren't arguing with bible fanatics here.

When you argue with me, you argue against my views.

Now you are convincing me that I'm a bad religios person since I don't interpert the Torah in the same way orthodox people do?

Also that when I criticize a piece of literature and belief I don't have enough to time to think of any possible variation of "interpretation": some Skin-head for example might interpret Mein Kampf in a totally symbolic way. But such an interpretation is unfounded and therefore irrelavent, as are most revisionist interpretations of Holy Books.

I disagree.

Mein Kampf was written for a certain purpose in mind, and that is rationalising the nazi conquest wars and war on jews.

The Bible was written by many different authors for hundreds of years. It contains many different perspectives and many different ideas.

Some of it is laws, some is poetry, some is "history", some is stories.


And you are wrong not to think of possible interpretations.

While one person may see the right to carry arms as a lisence to kill, another will see it as a lisence to defend himself if the need be.

The literal interpretation is often best to guy by,unless there is reason not too.

How about this:

It's a freaking literature piece!
Except for some of the laws, it was never meant to be taken literally.

That's the freaking problem of orthodox people, that they insist taking everything literally.

This is because without it set as a standard...literally anything goes.

I disagree.

I think that there are limits of logic with in which one can interpert a piece. And also now there are limits of state law. So even if I believe the bible allows me to murder a person because he stole my cow, or whatever, I can't do that since the law says I can't.

The bible should be left for personal life issues. While we can extract laws on which we can agree (ie no killing, no stealing) laws such as 'no eating pork' are personal and therefore shouldn't be made laws.

In that case I could interpret the Torah to be not better, but worse then its literal interpretation would warrant.

As long as you do it for your personal things, and decide that not only can't you eat pork, but you can't eat meat at all, you're welcome.

But if you decide it's ok to slaughter non-believers, this begins to hurt people so I wouldn't agree to that.

You seem to define Christianity here and other religions with any possible exception that may appear. That is ridiculous, if given a special view I will focus on that. But I can also at the same time generalize if I find reason to do so, and criticize a generally held belief system.

Then say you're fighting a genralization, and I will make room for those who believe in it to argue with you.

Just like a certain philsophy, I can criticize existentialism or Marxist econimic theory as a whole based on its most common views. If a another view comes up I work with that, but until it does I will criticize the standard viewpoint for that belief system.

Sure you can.
But it would be annoying if I just say that some social laws are right, and you would start arguing how Marx was wrong in his communist ideal, since I don't believe in his ideal.

Also remember here I'm focusing on group effect, in which case individual exception become irrelevant.

But today religion is very much a personal bussiness.

At least in the christian and jewish circles I know.

What you are talking about is organized religion, and I agree that it is dangerous and often gave the organziers opportunities to abuse their power, and they usually did.

Kaak:

Actually most do to an extent. Think of th whole Ten Commandmens issue. Like I said before there is no evidence that NT dictums make OT laws outdated.

My point again.
If he thinks it is then for him it is.

You can argue with his views or you can argue with some general views.

Don't come criticizing him he doesn't agree with those general views you're used to argue against, though.

[MikeH]

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted, goodbye fair threadjack.

[DinoDoc]

Good bye, threadjack. We knew ye well.

[Kaak]

LR- the basic problem you have here is this. Your premisis is bad. Any logical person would realize this.

Generlaizations can be accurate. I think history shows that mine is.

Huge mistake. Christians are a very diverse group of people with very diverse beliefs.

Simple logic problem for you.

assumptions:
Catholics are Christians
Baptists are Christians

Catholics revere the virgin mary.
Baptists do not revere the virgin mary.
therefore baptists and catholics have differing beliefs about the virgin mary.

It is good that you paid attention in your OT class, but perhaps you should take religions of the world too. And there is no burden of proof to show that the NT makes the OT outdated. It is a generally excepted fact that christians do not follow the OT in any literal sense. You attend a baptist university. If you think so, they you are blind.

[MikeH]

Surely no-one's actually read past the "Generalisations can be accurate" comment have they?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
Surely no-one's actually read past the "Generalisations can be accurate" comment have they?

I think they saw thier name and were compelled to respond. Kind of like what happens with Stefu and the word Finland.

[Kaak]

Here is my proposition:

Logical realist is neither logical, nor a realist