Monster said:

opinions based on something others have said? What? Of course many things that I have said are not original. Of course! Look at your opinions that you give. Most of them will be unoriginal as well. I can only tell you what I know and base my opinions off of those things.

You blindly believe in this book and disregard anyone who disagrees with your faith.

Click to expand...

Yes but opinions aren't always equal are they?

Would you rather have your valuables such as art and jewelry, appraised by an expert, or some schmo who read about how to evaluate flaws in the pieces?

Same goes for religious books included in the bible. Now we may disagree on who is qualified to provide the reasons that books were included or not, but I would have to put your opinions behind quite a few expert historians that I know, and of course in my own misguided opinion, I would put them behind mine. I think a have a rather deep understanding of it. You don't have to agree, but I figured that was more what the discussion was about, or at least why I entered the discussion to begin with.

BTW I don't blindly believe in anything, and certainly don't disregard anyone either, whether they agree with my faith or not. I'm not disregarding your conclusions, only telling you that they are wrong.

Do you really feel attacked by me? It wasn't my intention, just as I am sure your hatred for the Bible wasn't meant to attack me personally. At least I didn't take it as personally - am I wrong?

Monster said:

Oh...I've read the NT, twice.

1 timothy 2:11-15

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing?if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

of course, that's probably taken out of context, eh? There are more verses about women, but I'd say this is pretty good. Try telling your wife or mother that she needs to to shut her mouth because it's God's command. See how far that gets you.

In both Matthew and Mark, I believe, It's declared that any city that doesn't welcome the disciples shall have a worse fate than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus scolded the Jews for not killing their naughty, disobedient children as the OT commanded. He also says that most people will go to Hell. The NT also says that Homosexuality is a sin.

Jesus says that the laws of the OT still apply. I'm sure you could find a few dozen instances of cruelty and immorality in the OT if you just randomly select a few verses.

Click to expand...

More arguments of other issues you seem to think exist. Doubt it fits your own requirements for inclusion in the argument you seem to be having. Seems to me like your changing the argument from killing due to being atheists to just some mis-interpretation of passages.

Just to answer this new argument some - have you read current interpretations by scholars who didn't start with your hatred of the bible in general?

I don't care what any literalist declares about the Word of God and the Bible, it is impossible to not have interpretations of what was actually written. Maybe your interpretation hasn't considered all sides?

Now you may say, well I don't have to consider other interpretations, I read it for myself, but maybe that is why I argue that your opinions may be somewhat superficial.

Have I ever said in any post that you can't believe as you do? If I did please link it, and if I actually did, shoot me - I didn't mean it that way.

KAWDUP said:

Well start listing them, and analyze them with the same eye you seem to be discounting the Marxists as atheists who crucified Christians. Keep in mind killing anyone other than atheists by your own definitions wouldn't count. It would also have to be specifically because they were atheists too. Your list would start to look just as sparse.

Otherwise:
Not 100% sure how it became only atheists, and only in the name of atheism.

Romans and Egyptians killed Christians if they didn't worship the current grand leader as a god. I had thought we were talking about general persecution for a belief system, but maybe I misinterpreted?

Click to expand...

Dude, you really don't understand do you?

Russia was an Atheist society only because of its leaders. Their leaders were Atheists and enforced Atheism as a way of keeping its people separate. I'd liken it almost to a cult. Stalin and Lenin were living gods and were treated as such. They may have done things to spread atheism in their country, but the goal was not atheism. The goal was power and control.

Compare that to abortion clinic bombings, doctors being killed by religious fanatics. Add in Al Qaeda, other muslim extremists who kill for Allah (God). You can also think about all of these insane people who think God told them to kill their children. Would they have done those things without their belief in God? Who knows.

The witch hunts, the polygamist mormons (FLDS i think they're called), The inquisition, killings of Christians (burnings, crucifixion, lion food), human/animal sacrifice, slavery, spousal abuse, etc.

And for the record, no country should be able to dictate whether its people believe in God or what god to believe in. I don't know any Atheist who thinks any differently.

Monster said:

Dude, you really don't understand do you?

Russia was an Atheist society only because of its leaders. Their leaders were Atheists and enforced Atheism as a way of keeping its people separate. I'd liken it almost to a cult. Stalin and Lenin were living gods and were treated as such. They may have done things to spread atheism in their country, but the goal was not atheism. The goal was power and control.

Compare that to abortion clinic bombings, doctors being killed by religious fanatics. Add in Al Qaeda, other muslim extremists who kill for Allah (God). You can also think about all of these insane people who think God told them to kill their children. Would they have done those things without their belief in God? Who knows.

The witch hunts, the polygamist mormons (FLDS i think they're called), The inquisition, killings of Christians (burnings, crucifixion, lion food), human/animal sacrifice, slavery, spousal abuse, etc.

Click to expand...

. . . and none of those were about power in any way, and they were all due to being atheists? If you believe that, I continue to disagree with you.

Many evil people don't need a belief in God to perform their evil - how can you count those? You want to blame a belief in God and the Bible for all of that? I think it is more that you aren't getting your own argument, or at least what you stated your argument was, but hey you can keep pointing out all the evil in the world if makes you feel better about your argument. I don't think it applies to a belief in God and the Bible, but you are free to do so.

You see evil, and don't consider the source, or the real root cause, and just blame it on the Bible or a belief in God. Shows a reasonably superficial understanding - just as I have been stating all along.

KAWDUP said:

More arguments of other issues you seem to think exist. Doubt it fits your own requirements for inclusion in the argument you seem to be having. Seems to me like your changing the argument from killing due to being atheists to just some mis-interpretation of passages.

Just to answer this new argument some - have you read current interpretations by scholars who didn't start with your hatred of the bible in general?

I don't care what any literalist declares about the Word of God and the Bible, it is impossible to not have interpretations of what was actually written. Maybe your interpretation hasn't considered all sides?

Now you may say, well I don't have to consider other interpretations, I read it for myself, but maybe that is why I argue that your opinions may be somewhat superficial.

Have I ever said in any post that you can't believe as you do? If I did please link it, and if I actually did, shoot me - I didn't mean it that way.

Click to expand...

Enlighten me, then, oh knower of all that is knowable. What does Timothy 11-15 mean. Perhaps a scholar that you know of could tell me. Of course there is symbolism in the bible, but why the hell is it that every time you run across something inconvenient, I am taking it out of context or that I'm just a hater. But the Noah's flood wasn't symbolic, Adam and Eve weren't symbolic. The talking serpent wasn't symbolic.

KAWDUP said:

. . . and none of those were about power in any way, and they were all due to being atheists? If you believe that, I continue to disagree with you.

Many evil people don't need a belief in God to perform their evil - how can you count those? You want to blame a belief in God and the Bible for all of that? I think it is more that you aren't getting your own argument, or at least what you stated your argument was, but hey you can keep pointing out all the evil in the world if makes you feel better about your argument. I don't think it applies to a belief in God and the Bible, but you are free to do so.

You see evil, and don't consider the source, or the real root cause, and just blame it on the Bible or a belief in God. Shows a reasonably superficial understanding - just as I have been stating all along.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. However, Atheists have no books or teachings that we're required to obey. You do. Of course, in today's society many of those laws are considered to be irrelevant by Christians. I applaud Christians that set aside what the bible says in favor of human decency. I also applaud Atheists like me that can coexist with other Christians and allow them to believe what they want.

I do enjoy debating with people on t his subject, so I hope you don't think I'm some intolerant atheist with an agenda.

Monster said:

Dude, you really don't understand do you?

Russia was an Atheist society only because of its leaders. Their leaders were Atheists and enforced Atheism as a way of keeping its people separate. I'd liken it almost to a cult. Stalin and Lenin were living gods and were treated as such. They may have done things to spread atheism in their country, but the goal was not atheism. The goal was power and control.

Compare that to abortion clinic bombings, doctors being killed by religious fanatics. Add in Al Qaeda, other muslim extremists who kill for Allah (God). You can also think about all of these insane people who think God told them to kill their children. Would they have done those things without their belief in God? Who knows.

The witch hunts, the polygamist mormons (FLDS i think they're called), The inquisition, killings of Christians (burnings, crucifixion, lion food), human/animal sacrifice, slavery, spousal abuse, etc.

And for the record, no country should be able to dictate whether its people believe in God or what god to believe in. I don't know any Atheist who thinks any differently.

Click to expand...

. . . just for the record, we are ridiculously far away from what I responded to about how books were considered for inclusion in the Bible, and why some of the other Gospels showing other idiosyncrasies, like Jesus being married, might not have been included. You aren't answering any of my points, just repeating all the evil in the world you blame on the Bible.

Not quite as interested in your other hatred of the Bible, as there is no way either of us will convince the other, but of the three or four other arguments you have brought up, if I have something new to say, I will post it, otherwise, you can continue to believe that I just don't get it. I'm sure that's true.

Monster said:

Enlighten me, then, oh knower of all that is knowable. What does Timothy 11-15 mean. Perhaps a scholar that you know of could tell me. Of course there is symbolism in the bible, but why the hell is it that every time you run across something inconvenient, I am taking it out of context or that I'm just a hater. But the Noah's flood wasn't symbolic, Adam and Eve weren't symbolic. The talking serpent wasn't symbolic.

Click to expand...

You aren't a Bible hater?

I never called you a hater of anything else, point to where I did?

Much of the Old Testament could be considered symbolic. Depends on your ability to justify all of the interpretations out there to yourself.

Here is one interpretation of Timothy 11:15

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/1Tim/Men-Women-Worship

Is it the only one? Not by a longshot. Seriously does this passage really affect your World View so drastically? I mean siting this as a troubling passage - there are quite a few that are way more controversial than this one, and much harder to explain the interpretation of, but like I said, I am not a literalist - there is so much more that you can take away from the Bible that is quite applicable to my World View.

I am sorry that you can't, but like I said, I am certainly not going to convince you, but that kind of thing certainly hasn't stopped you from bringing up 4-5 different arguments from where we started. Did we go away from that discussion because you conceded my point?

Monster said:

Oh...I've read the NT, twice.

1 timothy 2:11-15

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

of course, that's probably taken out of context, eh? There are more verses about women, but I'd say this is pretty good. Try telling your wife or mother that she needs to to shut her mouth because it's God's command. See how far that gets you.

Click to expand...

There is context to consider here: Paul was writing a personal letter to Timothy, who was in Ephesus on an assignment to address the pastoral crises in the Ephesian Church, which was infested with leaders and influencers distracted by speculation rather than being focused on what Paul called "doctrine that inspires love and faith." Part of that was to ensure who should be doing the teaching, which was ordained ministry. So the context did not exclude women from teaching per se, but did exclude women from the teaching ministry. Women have an integral and specialized role in today's Church that is invaluable in proclaiming the Gospel to others. Paul does not exonerate Adam for his role in disobeying God. Other letters of Paul's acknowledge Adam's sin of disobedience.

In both Matthew and Mark, I believe, It's declared that any city that doesn't welcome the disciples shall have a worse fate than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus scolded the Jews for not killing their naughty, disobedient children as the OT commanded. He also says that most people will go to Hell. The NT also says that Homosexuality is a sin.

Jesus says that the laws of the OT still apply. I'm sure you could find a few dozen instances of cruelty and immorality in the OT if you just randomly select a few verses.

Click to expand...

I am a bit non-plussed as to how you can even concept what is cruel and immoral on your own--or how anyone can. Where's the universal source of morality? That's what C.S. Lewis grappled with.

If you want to know Jesus, look to the Cross and the Passion that led him to it. Whatever else you personally object to in the Bible or in what Jesus selectively proclaims in it is strictly your decision, driven by circumstances that I cannot begin to know. That they inconvenience you in addition is also not something I can respond to.

And the NT also identifies homosexual acts as sinful. The Letter of Timothy you cited, in fact.

byco42 said:

And the NT also identifies homosexual acts as sinful. The Letter of Timothy you cited, in fact.

Click to expand...

Really?

Because the name "Timothy" sounds pretty gay.

tinselwolverine said:

Really?

Because the name "Timothy" sounds pretty gay.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's the ear of the beholder.

tinselwolverine said:

Really?

Because the name "Timothy" sounds pretty gay.

Click to expand...

Good point, Tinsel.

yes, there have been some instances throughout history of atheists attacking christians as a matter of official government policy.

I would say that that's not as much of an indictment of atheism as christians attacking non-christians (be they atheists, muslims, jews, buddhists, tribal religions, etc.) is an indictment of christianity. I mean it's a little more hypocritical of the Pope to order a crusade than it is for Stalin to order some churches burned. Stalin never claimed to be head of atheism. and Stalin never claimed to be divinely inspired and linked to heaven, or whatever, as an unbroken chain of a religion going back to the son of god.

...But none of this has anything to do with the apparent discrepancy between these fragmentary (but genuine) records that indicate Jesus was married, with the official version where he was a committed bachelor.

I suppose for the true believers, there can be no acceptance of these documents. they simply cannot exist, or else you're put in a position where you have to accept the possibility Jesus was married. And do you stop there, or do you question other aspects of the biblical account? What a conundrum.

michchamp said:

I suppose for the true believers, there can be no acceptance of these documents. they simply cannot exist, or else you're put in a position where you have to accept the possibility Jesus was married. And do you stop there, or do you question other aspects of the biblical account? What a conundrum.

Click to expand...

Not really. The documents can be accepted as being written in the 6-9th century. Sure, many will reject them, but others will react differently. There's little text. No context. It's impossible to say exactly what it means. It's a puzzle piece, and right now, it doesn't connect to any other pieces. Maybe in 600 years, society will collapse, most of our writing will be lost, and they'll unearth bits of text from what is now Columbus, OH. It doesn't mean we actually kick babies for sport.

This isn't the 1st text to suggest Jesus had a wife, is it?

Gulo Blue said:

Not really. The documents can be accepted as being written in the 6-9th century. Sure, many will reject them, but others will react differently. There's little text. No context. It's impossible to say exactly what it means. It's a puzzle piece, and right now, it doesn't connect to any other pieces. Maybe in 600 years, society will collapse, most of our writing will be lost, and they'll unearth bits of text from what is now Columbus, OH. It doesn't mean we actually kick babies for sport.

This isn't the 1st text to suggest Jesus had a wife, is it?

Click to expand...

good points, of course. and I don't think it's the first text to suggest Jesus had a wife, either.

presumably the church conducted campaigns to destroy all texts/teachings to the contrary of theirs. that should be obvious... just look at how aggressive they were at times in enforcing official church dogma through show-trials, banning books, witch hunts, inquisitions, excommunications, etc. so it shouldn't be surprising that there's a scant record of conflicting writings... they would've been destroyed whenever church authorities could get there hands on them. and this had been going on for over 1,000 years... even as late as the 1500's, Spanish priests were burning writings from the Mayas.

after the mid-7th century, Egypt was outside of the reach of either Catholic or Orthodox Churches. also church authority there had been spotty since the late Roman period, which is why the coptic church was able to survive. that's probably why the few writings that conflict the church tend to show up there.

we'll probably never know, unless someone unearths a cache of documents explaining these discrepancies... and publishes all of them before anyone can burn them.

to continue your analogy, it would be like if someone only found the scribblings of Buckeye fans on the internet, along with the scribblings of the RichRod Excuse Makers and concluded "Michigan & ohio seem like awful institutions; look at all these absurd writings. who is to say that one side was more just?" But then they found my personal library, buried under layers of sediment, including Bo's Lasting Lessons, and the University of Michigan football vault, and said, "surely, here was the greatest program of all time. Such a learned man as this Michigan Champ would not have rooted for a corrupt, low brow, win-at-all-costs program."

michchamp said:

to continue your analogy, it would be like if someone only found the scribblings of Buckeye fans on the internet, along with the scribblings of the RichRod Excuse Makers and concluded "Michigan & ohio seem like awful institutions; look at all these absurd writings. who is to say that one side was more just?" But then they found my personal library, buried under layers of sediment, including Bo's Lasting Lessons, and the University of Michigan football vault, and said, "surely, here was the greatest program of all time. Such a learned man as this Michigan Champ would not have rooted for a corrupt, low brow, win-at-all-costs program."

Click to expand...

Says one researcher to another, "What do you think this means? Did they find it humorous when children had cancer?"

michchamp said:

good points, of course. and I don't think it's the first text to suggest Jesus had a wife, either.

Click to expand...

Again, that was the whole theme of the Da Vinci Code.

If you actually read real literature, you would know that.

tinselwolverine said:

Again, that was the whole theme of the Da Vinci Code.

If you actually read real literature, you would know that.

Click to expand...

I'll add it to my summer reading list, along with Eat, Pray, Love, The Secret, The Bible, Atlas Shrugged, Killing Jesus (by Bill O'Reilly), and that one Glenn Beck book.

Nothing for my "Tinsel" comment? I thought that would get a reaction for sure.

michchamp said:

I'll add it to my summer reading list, along with Eat, Pray, Love, The Secret, The Bible, Atlas Shrugged, Killing Jesus (by Bill O'Reilly), and that one Glenn Beck book.

Click to expand...

I don't know, you might like some of Atlas Shrugged.

There are two sides to every issue: One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

Click to expand...