Guest Bill M Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and unlikelihood of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown accuracy. One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no spaces were used to separate words. This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua" 'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely. Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy. Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the vocabularies were much more limited than today. The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their follower's belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions alone and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the originals. And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than inaccurate fiction. Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mettas Mother Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 But the money people make by publishing them is real! "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:CJnCh.37307$19.7224@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. > > > > The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, > human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, > barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and > certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally > untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. > > > > The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and unlikelihood > > of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there > are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown > accuracy. > > > > One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were > copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between > lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no > spaces were used to separate words. > > > > This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua" > > 'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no > where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left > accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely. > > > > Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the > intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and > you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy. > > > > Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the > vocabularies were much more limited than today. > > > > The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in > existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are > available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable > veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the > invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were > supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They > are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And > the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their follower's > belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions alone > and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the > originals. > > > > And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than > inaccurate fiction. > > > > Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Padraic Brown Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote: >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers. Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. [drollery snipped] Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightlessvacuum Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on > the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, > trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! > You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, > >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, > >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and > >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally > >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. > > There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but > you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths > are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are > usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate > history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a > fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott > Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the > Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated > "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers. As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's not psychedelically weird. I think there are many examples of earlier and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer, Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few. > Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on > the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, > trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! > You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. Oh. So you weren't giving a book review. Didn't think so. So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it? > [drollery snipped] > > Padraic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightlessvacuum Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On Feb 20, 1:54 pm, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I think there are many examples of earlier > and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer, > Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few. I really enjoyed studying the works of Homer in my youth, far superior to any of the fiction and fables contained within the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:46:26 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on >the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, >trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! >You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. And you are a deliberately nasty, bigoted liar who knows that atheism isn't a religion and doesn't proselytise. >[drollery snipped] > >Padraic Shove your crucifix up your ass and bugger yourself with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeckyl Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. There isn't much else to go on. What exactly is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enkidu Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:CJnCh.37307$19.7224 @bignews3.bellsouth.net: > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. I wouldn't advertise that if I were you. I've read the Bible. -- Enkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "With religion, even the village idiot can feel like Einstein." -- Denis Loubet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Padraic Brown Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:19:20 -0500, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:46:26 -0500, Padraic Brown ><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on >>the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, >>trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! >>You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > >And you are a deliberately nasty, bigoted liar who knows that atheism >isn't a religion and doesn't proselytise. Ah, good morning sunshine! I'm glad you could spare us a moment of your precious time to entertain us all with your rapier "wit". >Shove your crucifix up your ass and bugger yourself with it. Indeed. Still can't put two sensible words together without lacing the whole with vulgarity? You'll _never_ win anyone over, or even attract basic respect for your point of view, when the best you can come up with is "shove your crucifix up your ass". Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Padraic Brown Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On 19 Feb 2007 16:35:32 -0800, "flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on >> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, >> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! >> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > >Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. Apples and oranges, really. A real atheist wouldn't even engage in the above kind of nonsense. There would be no need for him to continually press the point that there is no God nor would there be a need for him to continually try to disparage the beliefs of others. For Bill M, his "atheism" is faith of a curious kind. Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Padraic Brown Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On 19 Feb 2007 16:54:06 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, >> >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, >> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and >> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally >> >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. >> >> There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but >> you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths >> are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are >> usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate >> history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a >> fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott >> Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the >> Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated >> "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers. > >As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to >understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're >telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then >Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as >such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is >generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's >not psychedelically weird. Well, that's ancient literature for you. I hope you weren't expecting something written to modern specs! > I think there are many examples of earlier >and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer, >Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few. I don't care much for Gilgamesh -- it too is strident and repetative (but that's probably a cultural trait). I've never read "Monkey". >> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on >> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, >> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! >> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > >Oh. So you weren't giving a book review. Didn't think so. > >So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it? Did I say I "base my life" on the Bible? Padraic > >> [drollery snipped] >> >> Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thedeviliam@hotmail.com Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. > > There isn't much else to go on. What exactly is your point? Do Christians really totally based their beliefs on the Bible? Most of them haven't even read the damn thing, and the ones that have ignore whatever they don't like. You can't "totally" base your beliefs on something that contradicts itself. --- Atheism vs. Christianity and Other Debate http://debate.fgsfds.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Uncle Vic Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 One fine day in alt.atheism, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this: > There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but > you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths > are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are > usually engaging stories. As we've discovered through rational thought, however, the good teachings of the bible simply parrot common sense. Then these teachings are proclaimed available only to believers, demoralizing non-believers for no reason other than non-belief. Religious morality can easily be illustrated through one simple experiment. If you want to observe firsthand the morality of any given human being, give him power over others. -- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester. Member Duke Spanking Club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pixel Painter Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 <thedeviliam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1171945953.785065.293000@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: <snipped stuff> You can't "totally" base your beliefs on something that contradicts itself. > > ---> > Atheism vs. Christianity and Other Debate > http://debate.fgsfds.org/ > True In the case of the BIBLE - we must remember that parts were removed "for our benefit" - lol, so we don't even have the whole story, that by itself hurts it historically. Additionally, there are more than one transliteration, translations, interpretation (or whatever you wish to call them), that are all by different people of different backgrounds, based on a partial story. It's no wonder that it became a work of contradiction. This isn't even accounting for the fact that people further remove from it to suite there own needs, hypocrisy is so sad. -- Julie maybe Mary made up the whole Jesus thing to keep from being stoned... :^D beLieve everythIng or nothing but not only thE words of otherS... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bob young Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Mettas Mother wrote: > But the money people make by publishing them is real! More than can be said for Benny Hinn's 'miracles' and he has a private jet ! > > > "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:CJnCh.37307$19.7224@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. > > > > > > > > The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, > > human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, > destruction, > > barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and > > certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally > > untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. > > > > > > > > The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and > unlikelihood > > > > of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there > > are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown > > accuracy. > > > > > > > > One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were > > copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between > > lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no > > spaces were used to separate words. > > > > > > > > This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua" > > > > 'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is > no > > where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left > > accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely. > > > > > > > > Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the > > intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and > > you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy. > > > > > > > > Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the > > vocabularies were much more limited than today. > > > > > > > > The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in > > existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are > > available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable > > veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the > > invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were > > supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity. > They > > are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. > And > > the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their > follower's > > belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions > alone > > and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the > > originals. > > > > > > > > And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than > > inaccurate fiction. > > > > > > > > Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bob young Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, > >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, > >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and > >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally > >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. > > There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but > you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths > are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are > usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate > history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a > fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott > Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the > Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated > "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers. > > Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on > the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, > trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! > You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. If you want to wax lyrical about verbiage, read Emmett's final line - it speaks volumes "Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness." [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields] > > > [drollery snipped] > > Padraic > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bob young Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 19 Feb 2007 16:35:32 -0800, "flightlessvacuum" > <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on > >> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, > >> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! > >> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > > > >Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. > > Apples and oranges, really. A real atheist wouldn't even engage in the > above kind of nonsense. There would be no need for him to continually > press the point that there is no God nor would there be a need for him > to continually try to disparage the beliefs of others. For Bill M, his > "atheism" is faith of a curious kind. ........as long as religionists insist on killing each other together with inoocent bystanders in the process of 'protecting' their myths atheists will be around. One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat. [Mark Twain, Notebook (1900)] > > > Padraic > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bob young Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Neil Kelsey wrote: > On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> > > wrote: > > > > >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, > > >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction, > > >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and > > >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally > > >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. > > > > There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but > > you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths > > are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are > > usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate > > history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a > > fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott > > Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the > > Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated > > "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers. > > As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to > understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're > telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then > Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as > such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is > generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's > not psychedelically weird. I think there are many examples of earlier > and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer, > Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few. "All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention of barbarian invention is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other, get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowed form of superstition then read the Holy bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, suppose a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity to be the author of such ignorance and such atrocity." [Robert Ingersoll (from his essay 'The Gods')] > > > > Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on > > the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, > > trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! > > You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > > Oh. So you weren't giving a book review. Didn't think so. > > So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it? > > > [drollery snipped] > > > > Padraic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 "flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171931732.535573.172060@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on >> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, >> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! >> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > > Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. > Are you trying to quote Existentialist Sartre? This is what he said: To say one does not believe in God is like saying one does not believe in baldness. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1171932846.054146.59080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, >> >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, >> >destruction, >> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and >> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and >> >totally >> >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction. >> >> There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but >> you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths >> are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are >> usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate >> history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a >> fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott >> Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the >> Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated >> "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers. > > As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to > understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're > telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then > Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as > such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is > generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's > not psychedelically weird. I think there are many examples of earlier > and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer, > Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few. > How can you "love literature" and miss the extraordinary Philosophy of life explained and demonstrated by Jesus Christ entirely? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1171932846.054146.59080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... > > So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it? > Tell us what "accuracy" you need to implement Christ's directives below. Pastor Frank Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Jesus in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command..." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 "flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171933682.679541.40990@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 20, 1:54 pm, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think there are many examples of earlier >> and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer, >> Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few. > > I really enjoyed studying the works of Homer in my youth, far superior > to any of the fiction and fables contained within the bible. > Are you trying to compare a work of fiction with ancient Semitic social and moral philosophy? Perhaps you can't even see the difference, can you? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 "Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:s0jkt2h3me6gdgm1pa4jbjq6rt579uqo76@4ax.com... > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:46:26 -0500, Padraic Brown > <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on >>the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something, >>trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right! >>You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others. > > And you are a deliberately nasty, bigoted liar who knows that atheism > isn't a religion and doesn't proselytise. > Shove your crucifix up your ass and bugger yourself with it. > Atheist rebuttals always end in violence, don't they? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 <thedeviliam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1171945953.785065.293000@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > >> > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles. >> >> There isn't much else to go on. What exactly is your point? > > Do Christians really totally based their beliefs on the Bible? Most of > them haven't even read the damn thing, and the ones that have ignore > whatever they don't like. You can't "totally" base your beliefs on > something that contradicts itself. > Categorical in your condemnation, aren't you? Sorry to hear that Christians don't live up to your exalted expectations, but then I bet nobody does. The Bible is ancient Hebrew social and moral philosophy, written mostly in the poetic format. Contradictions are mostly the result of one's inability to interpret constructively. Some excel in that, for that is what they are looking for and what's right escapes them completely. Are you that kind of person? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.