Dumbass Fundies

[GC]

Did you just skip Revelations and the rest of the NT after Acts?

Give some examples...

Don't you people say that Genesis is symbolic? Yet you take Revelation literally?

A great many Christians do not in regards to chapters 4-22.

As to the "Rest of the NT after Acts" ...I could quote it virtually in it's entirity to prove my side of the argument. Where in their does it support the claims Napoleon made?

Remeber, all answers must be in contect.

[NapoleonGH]

GC you are making a silly distinction. We are claiming that you most certianly can be religious and believe genesis is not literal.

BUT if you are arguing from a literalist point of view then...

Also, genesis is dealing with real world claims and actions, things that observations can either verify or refute, since real world observations clearly refute genesis, you have three options: 1. The bible isnt infallible when it comes to describing the natural world but it is still valid for the supernatural. 2. that genesis isnt meant to be literal 3. That the whole bible is meant to be literal and anything that can be disproven demonstrates that the whole book is a load of crap and your religion is flat out wrong.

If you deal with #1, then revelations must be taken at face value as simple observations of the real world do not demonstrate that it is full of shit.

if you deal with #2 then you could see it as figurative, but regardless you still have the basic view that the "righteous" will be given a reward and everyone else is eternally damned, still meaning that it is using fear tactics to get people to follow god's commands.

if you deal with #3 this entire discussion is pointless as the entire belief system is made up.

[GC]

See, GC, your delinating between jews and christians ASSUMES that jesus negates the Old Testament, when he himself is credited repeatedly with stating flat out that he has no intention of changing a single part of the old testament and that all people are still bound to follow it, all of it.

I make no such assumption. I mearly state that God gave specific people specific instructions at specific times and they are not, obviously, to be generally applied. If you tell your son to go to the mailbox and bring the mail it does not mean that you want every male child who enters your house to do the same, or even that you want the same child to do so tomorrow.

also, no im saying that people are compelled to be moral becuase otherwise they are sent to hell, otherwise there would be no need to threaten anyone with hell. Sure the minority of christains, known as protestants, say that all you need is faith, but the rest of christians say that you have to actually act in a moral way and the largest christian group specifically says that you must do good works otherwise you go to hell.

The Catholic church is noteably unbiblical on many issues.
This is one of them.
Anf they are only the majority because in so many places for so many years they have been the official state church and made many people Catholics by way of culture rather than faith (thus the term "lapsed catholic")
VERY FEW Catholics made a willfull decision to be a Catholic. They just don't know they have an option in many places.
In this they share alot in common with Islam (and in some other unfortunate ways)

I would ALMOST say that it is not Christianity at all - but there are true faith-based believers in the Chruch so I won't go that far.

[GC]

GC you are making a silly distinction. We are claiming that you most certianly can be religious and believe genesis is not literal.

BUT if you are arguing from a literalist point of view then...

Also, genesis is dealing with real world claims and actions, things that observations can either verify or refute, since real world observations clearly refute genesis, you have three options: 1. The bible isnt infallible when it comes to describing the natural world but it is still valid for the supernatural. 2. that genesis isnt meant to be literal 3. That the whole bible is meant to be literal and anything that can be disproven demonstrates that the whole book is a load of crap and your religion is flat out wrong.

If you deal with #1, then revelations must be taken at face value as simple observations of the real world do not demonstrate that it is full of shit.

if you deal with #2 then you could see it as figurative, but regardless you still have the basic view that the "righteous" will be given a reward and everyone else is eternally damned, still meaning that it is using fear tactics to get people to follow god's commands.

if you deal with #3 this entire discussion is pointless as the entire belief system is made up.

there is a fourth option.
Understand that different forms of literature are present in the Bible and read and understand each passage in the context of the type of literature it is as well as the historical circumstances involved.

Apocolyptic literature is well known to be the least "literal" form of literature in any ancint writings.

To attempt to force a liratl reading of apocolyptic lit just because you take a literal reading of a historical book such as Acts is just VERY bad hermanutics.

[Alyeska]

Just a few ground rules for this thread.

One, no outright insults of a religion. There is a difference between insulting idiot members and insulting the religion itself.

Two, if you make an idiotic statement and defend it, I don't give a shit if the other members flame your ass.

Have fun folks, just don't let this thread get to hot.

[NapoleonGH]

[
there is a fourth option.
Understand that different forms of literature are present in the Bible and read and understand each passage in the context of the type of literature it is as well as the historical circumstances involved.

Apocolyptic literature is well known to be the least "literal" form of literature in any ancint writings.

To attempt to force a liratl reading of apocolyptic lit just because you take a literal reading of a historical book such as Acts is just VERY bad hermanutics.

SO then you dont support a literal reading of the bible? Odd, previous statments by you lead me to belief you were a biblical literalist fundie.

[GC]

[
there is a fourth option.
Understand that different forms of literature are present in the Bible and read and understand each passage in the context of the type of literature it is as well as the historical circumstances involved.

Apocolyptic literature is well known to be the least "literal" form of literature in any ancint writings.

To attempt to force a liratl reading of apocolyptic lit just because you take a literal reading of a historical book such as Acts is just VERY bad hermanutics.

SO then you dont support a literal reading of the bible? Odd, previous statments by you lead me to belief you were a biblical literalist fundie.

Literal when the plain meaning of the text calls for it, figuritive when the context calls for it.

There are basic rules of hermanutics just as there are for logic.

For instance, in some places in Psalms it says "The mountains clapped their hands for joy" or some such.

Not one single Christian or Jew has ever passed a single moment in doubt wondering where these mountains with hands went to.

Paul said "beware of dogs" but he was not refering to canines.

Christ said a camel will go through the eye of a needle but it's obviously figurative language.

You labor under an unbeliveably large misaprehension if you think ANY Christian who EVER LIVED takes every single word as literal.

It just goes to show that one ought not put to much stock in stereotypes.

If you like, I will post the fundamental principles of hermanutics in their simplest form here if it will further the discussion.

But I don't want to seem to talk down to you so I'll wat until you agree they are needed.
Plus, it's too darn late tonight.

[SAMAS]

[
there is a fourth option.
Understand that different forms of literature are present in the Bible and read and understand each passage in the context of the type of literature it is as well as the historical circumstances involved.

Apocolyptic literature is well known to be the least "literal" form of literature in any ancint writings.

To attempt to force a liratl reading of apocolyptic lit just because you take a literal reading of a historical book such as Acts is just VERY bad hermanutics.

SO then you dont support a literal reading of the bible? Odd, previous statments by you lead me to belief you were a biblical literalist fundie.

Literal when the plain meaning of the text calls for it, figuritive when the context calls for it.

There are basic rules of hermanutics just as there are for logic.

For instance, in some places in Psalms it says "The mountains clapped their hands for joy" or some such.

Not one single Christian or Jew has ever passed a single moment in doubt wondering where these mountains with hands went to.

Paul said "beware of dogs" but he was not refering to canines.

But doesn't that fall under the choice about parts of the bible NOT being literal, Hmmm?

Christ said a camel will go through the eye of a needle but it's obviously figurative language.

Actually, Jesus meant it literally.

It was a slang reference to smaller acess doors through a city's walls. They were small, so a camel would have to pass through one on it's knees.

[GC]

^^^
In your first comment, you are correct.
That's pretty much what I said.

In your second comment, you are incorrect. It has been demonstrated that the "needle's eye gate" explanation is a myth. It's been some thime since I saw the exlination, but the thing was an explanation invented by a lady Bible teacher sometine since the Civil war (late 19th early 20th century IIRC) because she was looking for a dodge on this very issue of what to take literaly and what to take figurativly.

There are a great many people out there who come up with conveluted rationals to explain something they don't like.

There was no such gate and no such slang term.
The phrase is hyperbole.

[Queeb Salaron]

Literal when the plain meaning of the text calls for it, figuritive when the context calls for it.

There are basic rules of hermanutics just as there are for logic.

For instance, in some places in Psalms it says "The mountains clapped their hands for joy" or some such.

Not one single Christian or Jew has ever passed a single moment in doubt wondering where these mountains with hands went to.

Paul said "beware of dogs" but he was not refering to canines.

Christ said a camel will go through the eye of a needle but it's obviously figurative language.

As the French say, "d'uh."

You're not saying anything that any other moderate Christian hasn't said. Different authors of parts in the bible wrote in different styles. Leviticus was written literally. Genesis was folklore that somehow became the "Word of God," and is obviously not, at least not if you take it in context of contemporary Christian belief. Numbers was written as fact. Revelation was written as fiction. The Gospels have aspects of both, what with the Beatitudes and Crucifixion on the one hand, and the Miracles on the other. This much is painfully obvious. Now let's move on to other points.

You labor under an unbeliveably large misaprehension if you think ANY Christian who EVER LIVED takes every single word as literal.

First, take this out of the accusitory and put it in a more general form. You'll get in trouble on this board if you go around saying that "you labor under an unbelieveably large burden...." People here tend to take things like that the wrong way. But yes, you're right. ONE labors under such a burden if ONE assumes that all Christians take every single word as literal. But even of the parts that ARE literal, one would also be a damned fool to let such laws as those stated in Lev. 18 govern their daily life. Even some of Jesus' teachings fall short of practicality when one takes into account things like moral theft, a concept that puts into contradiction many of the NT teachings. Even where the bible is literal, it's not rock-solid. If anything, the NT restates common sense, and then attributes that common sense as God's Will. Which is pretentious to say the least, as my morality (for example) could be mistaken as Christian, but inwardly has nothing to do with God or Christianity.

It just goes to show that one ought not put to much stock in stereotypes.

Fine. But don't turn a blind eye to the origins of those stereotypes. The roots of Christianity are harsh and offensive. Today, some Christians assume that label, though in most cases wrongly so. The only Christians I don't like are of two groups: Those who try to impose Christianity upon me, and those who claim that Christianity has always been a shining pillar of virtue. The latter category is infinitely more despicable.

My two cents.

[LadyTevar]

^^^
In your first comment, you are correct.
That's pretty much what I said.

In your second comment, you are incorrect. It has been demonstrated that the "needle's eye gate" explanation is a myth. It's been some thime since I saw the exlination, but the thing was an explanation invented by a lady Bible teacher sometine since the Civil war (late 19th early 20th century IIRC) because she was looking for a dodge on this very issue of what to take literaly and what to take figurativly.

There are a great many people out there who come up with conveluted rationals to explain something they don't like.

There was no such gate and no such slang term.
The phrase is hyperbole.

Well.. that explains why I've never head that one.

The story I heard was that 'camel' is a mistranslation of another word that meant 'rope'. Women of the time, when shopping for thread, would use this phrase to mean that a certain thread was spun too thickly or roughly to be pulled through their needle.

EDIT: Spelling

[GC]

Literal when the plain meaning of the text calls for it, figuritive when the context calls for it.

There are basic rules of hermanutics just as there are for logic.

For instance, in some places in Psalms it says "The mountains clapped their hands for joy" or some such.

Not one single Christian or Jew has ever passed a single moment in doubt wondering where these mountains with hands went to.

Paul said "beware of dogs" but he was not refering to canines.

Christ said a camel will go through the eye of a needle but it's obviously figurative language.

As the French say, "d'uh."

You're not saying anything that any other moderate Christian hasn't said. Different authors of parts in the bible wrote in different styles. Leviticus was written literally. Genesis was folklore that somehow became the "Word of God," and is obviously not, at least not if you take it in context of contemporary Christian belief. Numbers was written as fact. Revelation was written as fiction. The Gospels have aspects of both, what with the Beatitudes and Crucifixion on the one hand, and the Miracles on the other. This much is painfully obvious. Now let's move on to other points.

Ah, but there are valid considerations concerning where to make the distinctions.
Upon what herminutical principle is it valid to read a text in which Jesus sets himself down and makes a speech and rises up and preforms a miracle - al in a continus narrative - and the former is determined literal but the later is found symbolic?

I know of no form of textual criticism which can do this.

One MAY dismiss all of Genesis as folklore (though it becomes more troublesome if one starts decide some is and some isn't, but then one has to make some accounting for NT figures treating it as literal.

(Unless of course who dismisses the whole concept of insperation and studies it as one would study Tacitus - in which case you would just say of Paul or even Jesus "He was wrong")

But the heart of the matter is this: The entire Christian religion rests upon a supernatural event - the Ressurection of Christ.
Nothing about Christianity is valid if that did not, in fact happen. So if you dismiss all miracles as fiction, then you dismiss the whole book as far as religious value. OTOH, if you once accept the ressurection as a literal event, you are then freed up to understand other passages n light of the possibility that even though an event described is a supernatural one, it can still - possibly - be a literal account.

So, in that regard, it is not a foundational principle of hermanutics that just because something is "obviously" impossible it is not to be taken literaly. The Ressurection is "obviously impossible" but it either happened, or you are wasting your time studying the book in the first place.

You labor under an unbeliveably large misaprehension if you think ANY Christian who EVER LIVED takes every single word as literal.

First, take this out of the accusitory and put it in a more general form. You'll get in trouble on this board if you go around saying that "you labor under an unbelieveably large burden...." People here tend to take things like that the wrong way. But yes, you're right. ONE labors under such a burden if ONE assumes that all Christians take every single word as literal. But even of the parts that ARE literal, one would also be a damned fool to let such laws as those stated in Lev. 18 govern their daily life.

Agreed.
But then part of responsible textual criticism is the ability to find out that the ceremonial law in Leviticus was given for a particular time and place and not for general application throughout history.

Even some of Jesus' teachings fall short of practicality when one takes into account things like moral theft, a concept that puts into contradiction many of the NT teachings. Even where the bible is literal, it's not rock-solid. If anything, the NT restates common sense, and then attributes that common sense as God's Will. Which is pretentious to say the least, as my morality (for example) could be mistaken as Christian, but inwardly has nothing to do with God or Christianity.

It just goes to show that one ought not put to much stock in stereotypes.

Fine. But don't turn a blind eye to the origins of those stereotypes. The roots of Christianity are harsh and offensive. Today, some Christians assume that label, though in most cases wrongly so. The only Christians I don't like are of two groups: Those who try to impose Christianity upon me, and those who claim that Christianity has always been a shining pillar of virtue. The latter category is infinitely more despicable.

My two cents.

Well...I do agree with some of this but there's some that just doesn't fly.

It's not the ROOTS of Christianity that are harsh - unlesh you mean the treatment they RECEIVED was harsh.
The religion started with an act of ultimate love and much of what we know of the first 3 centuries of it's existance was noble.

Christianity's "harsh and offensive" history dates not to its roots, but rather to the unholy union of church and state. Within a generation or two of the practice of kings converting their entire population by royal decree, instead of the true Christian method of personal faith based decisions, the continent began to be filled with people who carried the NAME Christian - in a cultural sense - but were not involved at all in a relationship with God in a spiritual sense...thus, not really "Christians" at all.

While no single person or body of persons is perfect, and I and every Christian I know fails and does dumb things and embarasses our faith on a continual basis, you will find with a study of history that the VAST majority of atrocities commited in the name of Christ were commited in association with the official government sanction of Christianity. they were very often purely political actions upon which some pope or king invoked the name of Christ and duped a populace purposly kept unfamiliar with the Scriptures into blindly acting as their godless leaders had told them to (Crusades are the obvious example here).
Many more were acts of the "church" itself in protection of its own curropupt power base (such as the Inquisiton) and still more done by misguided folks so indoctrinated in the mindset of the State Church that the can't reason "outside the box"...the ongoing strife in Ireland being an example.

So yes, absolutely the history of that which was/is CLAIMED to be Christianity is heinus (though much of it took place in a world filled with atrocity) but there is a huge difference in a claimed religion and a sincerly held one and if one takes a balanced view of the world, one must condem Inquisitions, Conquistadors, and Crusades - but one must also salute all the hospitals, orphanages, leper colonies and on and on which have done good in the name of Christ as well. And the one divideing factor over and over again is that the evil is almost always done under a state sanctioned church and the good is almost always done apart from it.

As to the imposition of Christianity upon you, I can only say that I apologize to you for the overzealous. We ARE commanded to share the Gospel. We HAVE to tell you if we are in obedience. but one should NEVER seek to force it. Forced religion inevitably leads to tragic results.

A Christian faith that is not chosen freely of ones own volition is not a Christian faith at all.

Most of those "imposers" are folks who are either very new and very excited and sincerly can't understand why everyone wouldn't WANT to be converted, or they were never matured in the faith and descend into legalism.

But, after all, Christianity isn't a haven for perfect folks, its a hospitial for fallen folks. And we are no more unlikely than any other demographic group to have our share of twits.

[NapoleonGH]

no the root of christianity is rotten, look at the OT

[Darth Servo]

Firstly, what God ordains as right and wrong are inherently right or wrong. You cannot decide for yourself something is right or wrong.

OK, so what is "inherently wrong" about taking God's name in vain. I'll give you a hint: "God said so" is NOT a reason.

Secondly, God does nothing to you.

You call banishing someone to hell for all eternity NOTHING?

[DPDarkPrimus]

You call banishing someone to hell for all eternity NOTHING?

Let's see his reply to that! Good point, Servo.

[GC]

Hell is the default position since Adam.

Heaven is something you gain, not something you lose.

[Darth Wong]

Hell is the default position since Adam.

Heaven is something you gain, not something you lose.

If Hell is the default position since Adam, this means that God is unspeakably vindictive and evil. In his mind, you are now guilty until proven innocent, and you will be punished vastly out of proportion to any crime. The only way to avoid this punishment is not to behave yourself (since you're all fucked anyway), but to suck up to him.

That is the definition of a cruel despot.

[CaptainChewbacca]

What's wrong with Mark 16:18?

Some apostles handled poisonous snakes without fear. Paul was almost given godhood by an island's inhabitants when he survived being bitten by a poisonous snake.

It doesn't say all Christians will do it, just like we all don't call down thunder on towns of nonchristians.

Not much of a test, if you ask me.

[Darth Wong]

What's wrong with Mark 16:18?

Some apostles handled poisonous snakes without fear. Paul was almost given godhood by an island's inhabitants when he survived being bitten by a poisonous snake.

It says that true believers will "not be harmed at all" by drinking lethal poison. It doesn't say that true believers might be able to survive being bitten by poisonous snakes. There are people today who can survive being bitten by poisonous snakes; it depends on the type of snake and the amount of resistance built up.

It doesn't say all Christians will do it, just like we all don't call down thunder on towns of nonchristians.

Where does it say that only the apostles fit the definition of true believer in this passage?

Not much of a test, if you ask me.

Not if you add the condition that it only applies to the apostles and no one else. If that condition is in the text, let me know.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'll put it in context of the verses it goes with, so its a bit clearer:

Matthew, 16: 15-18

15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tounges; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink the deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

So, immunity to venom is just ONE of the signs that can be an indicator of a believer, but remember what Luke 4:12 says:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

I'm sure God can make you immune to venom, but he also gives you the gift of reason. So don't drink poisonous things.

Oh yeah. God is good.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks, CC.

However, I note that it still says this will apply to anyone who believes and is baptised. And regardless of whether Luke admonishes not to put God to the test, the fact remains that Jesus makes a specific, testable prediction here. If it doesn't pan out, then he's wrong. Simple as that.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well remember, that wasn't Luke saying not to test, that was a quote from Jesus himself.

So either both of those quotes are true and I win, or they're both false and then your entire postulation is moot.

Jesus and CaptainChewbacca! A team you just can't beat.
Two tall, hairy Nazarenes looking for a fight

Can't you just picture a last supper with a Wookiee at the table?

[GC]

Hell is the default position since Adam.

Heaven is something you gain, not something you lose.

If Hell is the default position since Adam, this means that God is unspeakably vindictive and evil. In his mind, you are now guilty until proven innocent, and you will be punished vastly out of proportion to any crime. The only way to avoid this punishment is not to behave yourself (since you're all fucked anyway), but to suck up to him.

That is the definition of a cruel despot.

Actually, no.
That's a natural condition of being perfectly sinless and rightious. Which is a prerequisite for being God.

To be true to his nature, he cannot tolerate even a hint of imperfection i.e. sin. So to sin is to seperate yourself by nature from the presence of God.

You are not, however, seperated until you willfully sin (a little child for instance without the ability to grasp the nature of sin would not be so excluded). But having done so, you have acted to seperate yourself from God. His supposed "cruelty" is not at issue unless you propose that he just "overlook" evil. If he does that, how do YOU define how much evil is tolerable and when it reaches a level at which it must be noticed. And by what standard is this line drawn?

Nevertheless, however you feel about the proportinality between sin and the punishment which results, I find it fascinating that you can appreciate the "cruelty" of the transaction, yet blithly ignore the fact that he himself paid the price for any who are willing to accept the FREE GIFT of forgivness.

You guys keep harping on "you have to be good and kiss up to him and follow rules " and so on and so forth to gain god's pleasure...
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing any man EVER has to do to gain heaven and avoid this "cruelty" you deride is to admit that YOU can DO NOTHING and accept the FREE gift.

You DO know what FREE means don't you?

No sacrifices.
No baptism.
No tithe.
No church attendence.
no NOTHING is added to that simple admission in order to enter the presence of God.

Would he LIKE for you to aknowledge his ways in your life?
Of course!

Do you HAVE to to make it to heaven?
Nope.

He gave his own son to suffer the cruelty you complain of for YOUR sake, so that YOU would pay NOTHING.

Yet you mock him.

If you are homeless and on the street and I walk up to you and offer you a Jed Clampett rll of cash and say "Here, thake this as my free gift" and you do not reach out your hand and accept the gift, who's fault is it you remain on the street?
YOURS!

If you stand before a judge and he condems you to death, then hesteps down from the bench and turns himself over to the balif and offers to be executed in your place, do you complain because he sentenced you, or love him for the gift that means that you don't have to die?

IF you go to hell you VOLENTEERED to go.

The way out has been provided - free of charge - to any who will accept...no strings attached.

Not "vindictive and evil" from where I sit.

[SirNitram]

I never volunteered for Hell. I simply Am, and I live according to real morality, not orders. And yet, according to you and your stupid little book and insipid, spoiled brat of a divinity, I'm gonna burn? Oh yes, it's a 'gift' to be saved. Please, you moron, indenturing yourself as a 'gift' was a lie bandied around in the Roman Empire. I realize your societal subculture hasn't advanced past that, but the rest of us have.

[GC]

I never volunteered for Hell. I simply Am, and I live according to real morality, not orders. And yet, according to you and your stupid little book and insipid, spoiled brat of a divinity, I'm gonna burn? Oh yes, it's a 'gift' to be saved. Please, you moron, indenturing yourself as a 'gift' was a lie bandied around in the Roman Empire. I realize your societal subculture hasn't advanced past that, but the rest of us have.

So, what exactly am I indentured to do?

biblically speaking - and if we are discussing hell we are speaking Biblically - what must I do from now on because I have accepted the gift?

Tell me, wise one, what one or more things, should I fail to do them...what one or more things should I chose to do them...will result in my going to hell?