Cherry picking the bible

[Cartoonist]

How do they get away with it? There isn't a single issue where the bible can't come up with quotes that support both sides. Even slavery is advocated in the bible. The dictionary defines that as hypocrisy, so why isn't the bible called the Hypocrites Handbook?

I came across this while googling that duck idiot.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
Corinthians - 21st Century King James Version

That's quite a list. So how come Gays are the only ones forbidden to marry?

[immoderate]

1. Cognative dissonance.

--imm

[mr blur]

5. Absolutely right. It's the reason why, for example,

they squeal about not being able to pray out loud in schools and at football games, and other places because it means they're being 'persecuted', but conveniently ignore the admonishment in Matthew that says, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

[xfundy]

2. "Both read the bible day and night,

"one sees black, the other, white." — Abraham Lincoln

[Maedhros]

3. Why is God down on the effeminate?

His Son was a long haired dreamboat with perfect skin

[Thor_MN]

4. Yeah, but how is a guy who walks on water supposed to take a bath?

Odds are, one would prefer to be upwind of Jesus.

[cbayer]

10. Yeah! That's right! Jesus was a big stinkpot!

[Cartoonist]

6. This was the King James version

The word poofter wasn't in vogue then.

[cbayer]

11. Is poofer a word that is in vogue for you?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Perhaps some outrage is in order?

It must mean something objectionable, am I right?

[okasha]

46. Indeed, it is.

"Poofter" is a homophobic slur as offensive as "faggot."

I'm a bit surprised this post is still here. On the other hand, it's just as well that it is. It tells us nothing about the topic, but much about the poster.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Yes but "poofer" isn't.

And the usage in the original post was not homophobic, it was noting the overt homophobia of the bible and explaining, in a light hearted manner, why the word effeminate was used. But you knew that. I'm guessing a jury figured it out too. Imagine that.

[trotsky]

67. Funny, that.

The homophobia found in the bible and practiced by Christianity's adherents up to this day isn't the problem - noooo, it's atheists on an Internet message board in the 21st century pointing it out. How terrible!

[okasha]

86. Wrong.

"Poofer" is simply the American version. But thanks for making clear where you stsnd with regard th LGBTs.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. Where I stand is that the bible is full of homophobic shit and should be ridiculed

for it as much as possible and that anyone supporting biblical religions needs to get that through their thick skulls. And again, there was nothing homophobic about that comment at all.

[okasha]

111. Wrong again.

You don't get to decide what's homophobic. LGBT's do.

[Goblinmonger]

119. Yet you chime in as to what is and (usually isn't) atheist bigotry

all the time.

You should probably stop that given the standard you have just declared.

[okasha]

120. I have never attempted to tell any atheist

anywhere or any time, what constitutes bigotry against atheists. That's up to atheists.

Bigotry by some atheists against other groups is a whole different matter. That is where I've "chimed in," as you put it, especially when the bigotry is homophobic or misogynist.

[trotsky]

128. And lots of them have decided exactly that.

You don't speak for them - you speak only for yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

257. Faux outrage.

Why don't you tell us how you feel about the use of "Effeminate" in the bible quote (KJV) that was referenced?

Might that be a slur as well? Might Cartoonist be offering a substitute slur in sarcasm? Because he is.
'Effeminate' is a common insult leveled at gay men.

[Prophet 451]

214. "poofter" is a common slang term for "gay" here (UK)

Given how much the climate has changed (for the better), it's falling into disuse though.

[cbayer]

239. Is it slang or is it a slur?

[Prophet 451]

241. Generally, a slur

It's occasionally used by gay men to one another in the same way as black men sometimes use "nigger". But usually, it's a slur or the speaker is too old to realise it's offensive.

[cbayer]

242. That is what I thought and why I raised an objection to it's use.

And I do recognize that I misspelled it, possibly an unconscious slip on my part.

[AtheistCrusader]

258. And you completely skipped merrily past the use of 'effeminate'. Must be unconscious as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

256. Impressive deflection.

If one keeps in mind the context of the use 'effeminate' in the KJV bible, you might note it's a negative connotation as well. One might even remember it's a slur in that context.

Cartoonist's word substitution did not change the context. Or, in other words, had the KJV translation been made today, it might have used XYZ similar slur.

[cbayer]

9. Where do you get the idea that god is down on the effeminate?

Or did you just make that up.

[Maedhros]

15. From the OP:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
Corinthians - 21st Century King James Version

[cbayer]

18. Interestingly, that only occurs in some versions and is exactly why

cherry picking is the only rational approach when it some to complex sets of sacred books like the Bible.

Note that this particular verse does not include homosexuals, while other versions of this exact same verse does.

[Maedhros]

24. I was simply pointing out the irony of the passage

given that most American depictions of Jesus show him to be a very effeminate man.

[Gore1FL]

126. The best approach is ignoring them all.

Realizing that these works were written by iron-age peasants makes them slightly less relevant than the Harry Potter series.

[cbayer]

127. And if that works for you, that's great.

But the position you hold is uniquely yours and can't be applied across the board to others. There is great relevance for many people.

You approach is an approach, but it is not at all the "best" approach.

[Gore1FL]

130. I don't concede that believing in fairtales as good for anyone.

Hence, not believing in them is the "best" approach by far.

[cbayer]

131. I don't concede that religious beliefs are fairytales,

but I do have an opinion about those that think they have the "one way".

[Gore1FL]

132. We can use fiction instead of fairlytales if you prefer.

It's all made up bullshit whatever term we use.

[cbayer]

133. You can use whatever you want, but you would be hard

pressed to provide any evidence to support your claim.

As it is, it just appears that you are expressing a belief based on faith.

[Gore1FL]

136. Not at all

No evidence has been provided to support any religious claim. Knowing that doesn't require faith. It requires observation. Jesus and Zeus are equally plausible and equally backed by evidence.

[cbayer]

137. That is not what you said.

You made a definitive claim that it is fairytale, fantasy, made up. The lack of evidence is not evidence, as is so often repeated around here. The onus is on you to back up your claim…. but you can't.

And the fact that you think you know, that you are right, is no different than those that make definitive claims about religious beliefs being factual.

You are both on the ends of the same stick.

[truebrit71]

140. Again with the proving a negative concept?

[cbayer]

142. No, taking a stance that something is fiction

is not a negative concept. It is taking the position that something was made up, fabricated. It is a positive concept and the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim.

My, you are truly easily amused aren't you? That's a good thing, imo.

[truebrit71]

143. And yet you just can't help but be condescending can you?

[cbayer]

144. Oh, I can help it, but you make it so very easy.

[truebrit71]

146. So condescension is de rigeur for you...

...but some make it even easier to be condescending....

Thanks for clearing that up...

[cbayer]

148. Hey, what happened to the little guy rolling all over the floor?

I think I mentioned to you before that when you resort to the straight out ad hom without any reply to the substance at all, you make only one point - you've got nothing.

Except perhaps platitudes and smilies.

So, do you want to reply to the substance of my post or just keep upping the personal attacks?

[truebrit71]

155. Speaking of nothing...

...how's that whole proving a negative thing coming along...you know...for a scientific point of view...

Whilst you're working on that, would you be so kind as to point out which one of my posts in this thread is a personal attack?

It's okay...I'm used to waiting...

*countdown to more condescension in 5...4....3....

Better?

[cbayer]

157. Ok, so you are not going to address the substance.

That's cool.

I'm happy to either let you have the last word here or take it myself. Means nothing to me.

[truebrit71]

161. Substance of what?

You haven't said anything of substance yet...

What am I supposed to be addressing?

[cbayer]

166. "you haven't said anything of substance yet…"

Lovely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=154700

[Gore1FL]

147. It's pretty clear that religion exists

ergo someone made it up.

Q.E.D.

[cbayer]

149. Wait, so did someone make up gravity, too?

Ok, you win.

[Gore1FL]

151. No. Gravity is a force of nature.

Though of the four forces of nature we no the least about gravity, we understand it enough to understand that it predates man and was not made man.

[cbayer]

152. A force of nature?

Are you sure there might not be 5 forces of nature? 6?

Are you certain that there is not a god that is a force of nature? Do you have any evidence?

You are again taking the definitive stance that god is something made up by man. That is your opinion, your belief. It is not a fact.

[truebrit71]

153. Fine. Prove he exists and we'll all just shut up.

Deal?

We'll be waiting over here. --------------------------------->

[cbayer]

154. I don't know if there is a god or not and have absolutely no interest

in proving anything.

So, no deal.

Who is we? I like to know who will be waiting for me over there.

While you are waiting, please get to work on that proof for this all being fiction. Don't rush. There is likely a nobel prize at stake.

[truebrit71]

159. "we" would be all of the people that take the position that there is no god...

To be clear, you say you don't know if there is a god or not, but you believe/worship him/her anyway, yes and don't care if he/she/it are actually real...yes?

Oh, and it is you, that is supposed to be working on your thesis that you CAN prove a negative...

Please proceed...

[cbayer]

164. So you speak for all atheists? Really?

Far from it, actually.

And now you are just making shit up. Where in the world do you get the idea that I believe/worship a god? Is that just a belief you have formed because I don't fit your criteria of a non-believer?

I can prove a negative. I am not a man. I can prove it.

You don't like that and won't accept any other example I give you. This idea of not being able to prove a negative is a meme (credit to Dawkins) that is held by some non-theists. There are scores of thoughtful articles by logicians about how this meme is incorrect. You can do your own research, and this might be a good one to start with.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

But when it comes to god, I agree absolutely. You can not prove a negative and those that take the position that there is no god can never prove it. They are, therefore, voicing a belief without evidence.

[truebrit71]

174. "Where in the world do you get the idea that I believe/worship a god?"

You mean OTHER than the atheist flame-bait you post almost daily? Your ridicule of atheists in general, your arrogant, condescending tone taken with ANYONE that dares suggest that there ISN'T a god....

OTHER than those things, not much really....

[cbayer]

175. The atheist flame bait I post almost daily?

Please give me some examples. You could just stick to the past week.

I don't post atheist flame bait, I don't ridicule atheists and I don't take an arrogant, condescending tone with ANYONE that dares suggest there ISN'T a god . This is a fantasy of yours that has no basis in reality.

And from that fantasy, you have concluded that I believe/worship a god.

You could not be more wrong. You are on a witch hunt. You are basing all of this on my personal approach to you as an individual. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your atheism.

[Warren Stupidity]

179. The poster loves, just relishes, playing her "oh you think I'm a theist" gotcha card.

It really makes her day. Of course she is a theist, even if she claims to be an agnostic, she is at best an agnostic theist. Her boat-mate claims to be an atheist too, go figure.

[Gore1FL]

160. Name one religion that isn't man-made.

If you cannot, I suggest that is ample proof that religion is man made.

[cbayer]

165. Man made? I have no idea what you mean by that.

That is proof of absolutely nothing. What if the religious ideas expressed by men came from a supernatural source? Do you have any evidence that this is not the case? Would that mean it was man made or something else entirely?

[Gore1FL]

167. If it came from a supernatural source, please cite evidence that it did.

Otherwise, we are still waiting on the evidence to support the claim that there is a supernatural source at all, much less that it is the source of anything.

[cbayer]

169. I have no evidence and do not have any interest in taking the position that

it does. But I don't know that it doesn't, and neither do you.

I again ask you who this "we" is. Who do you think you represent?

[Gore1FL]

170. "We" = the human race.

"We" have no evidence of a God.

"We" have exactly the same amount of evidence that there is a tooth fairy.

Based on this evidence, there is no point in believing that either exist. Until there is evidence that demonstrates this is nothing other than unproved fairy tales and fantasy, that is the shelf that they all go on.

[cbayer]

172. You speak for the human race? Really?

Some people do think they have evidence and many, many people can see a clear distinction between their god and a tooth fairy.

Are they not part of the human race? Are you so self-assured in your position that you would elevate your status as a human above theirs?

I don't care if you believe or not, and frankly I doubt there are many that care. You are perfectly within your rights and take a reasonable position to not believe in god.

It's your judgement of others that don't share your perspective that is bothersome.

[Lordquinton]

178. take this up with your husband

He just spoke on bhalf of 7 billion people elsewhere in this thread.

[cbayer]

180. Nah, I'll let you do that.

Here you go:

[Gore1FL]

158. there may be 5 forces of nature or maybe 6, maybe thousands. We know about 4.

It may make our understanding of the universe incomplete, but it doesn't make religion true.

If you want to call define God as Gravity, I'll happily go along with it. It's clear, however, there is no evidence for a personal poking, prodding, and prayer answering God as described in religions. That's not a belief of mine, it's an observation of mine. You can prove me wrong by demonstrating evidence of a personal poking, prodding, and prayer answering God exists. I won't wait.

[cbayer]

162. Well, "religion" is true, what we are discussing is whether some

of the beliefs held by religions and the text felt to be sacred are true.

And, I agree completely that the number of "forces of nature" doesn't make those beliefs true. But it also doesn't make them untrue.

Here's the deal. No one knows. Anyone who says they do is wrong, period. They don't have the evidence. They are speculating and voice their beliefs.

I don't want to define god as anything. I don't know whether there is a god or not, and frankly I don't care.

What I do care about is religious tolerance. Some people believe in a personal poking, prodding and prayer answering god. Some people believe in something quite different. And some people don't believe there is a god at all. So what?

Don't wait, I have no evidence to offer you and make no such claim.

And you have no more footing to make a claim than anyone else.

[Gore1FL]

171. I don't need footing to point out that the bullshit people say is not backed by evidence.

Without evidence, all we have are unsupported claims.

[cbayer]

173. But that is not what you said.

You can certainly take the position that religious beliefs are not backed by evidence and are unsupported claims.

But you cross the line when you go a step further and say they are made up fiction. That is a belief that is also not backed by evidence and is an unsupported claim.

I guess one could call that bullshit as well.

[Gore1FL]

185. I use the definition of "Fiction."

fic·tion
noun \ˈfik-shən\

: written stories about people and events that are not real : literature that tells stories which are imagined by the writer
1
a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
c : a work of fiction; especially : novel

2
a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>
b : a useful illusion or pretense

3
: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction

[cbayer]

186. Resonable defintion.

It includes that the thing is not real, that it is imagined or invented, a novel.

That is a definitive position. When you say something is fiction, you are taking the position that it is imagined and not real.

You have no evidence that that is the case. You are taking your belief, positing it as fact and have nothing to back it up.

Continue to do it, but it is not a rational position to take. Gnosticism, when it comes to religion, is foolish, imo.

[Gore1FL]

189. You should probably stop digging at some point.

The contradictions make it not real. The lack of evidence demonstrates it to be imagined.

It's not my belief that it is fiction. It fits the definition of fiction.

[cbayer]

190. No, the contradictions just make it, well, contradictory.

The bible is real. It is not imagined. It does not meet the definition of fiction. It might in fact be fiction, but there is no evidence to support that.

But you should probably keep digging. Eventually you might get to china!!

[Gore1FL]

201. Contradictory things cannot be simultaneously true.

The numerous contradictions prove it to be at least partially false all by themselves.

[cbayer]

238. That would be correct, but all it means is that one of this is likely

wrong. It doesn't mean they are both false.

My hair is blond. My hair is red. Contradictory statements. One of them is true.

[Gore1FL]

244. It means the book that presents them both as true is false. n/t

[cbayer]

245. The book doesn't do anything.

There are people who take the position that everything in the bible is true. That clearly creates a problem, as there are contradictions, as you correctly note.

But there are lots of other people who don't think everything in the bible is true and read it in that context.

So, the correct statement would be that those that hold everything in the bible to be true are wrong, but it is not logical to then conclude that everything in the bible is false.

[Gore1FL]

248. If the stories are known to be questionable

How do you know which ones aren't bullshit, and why would anyone assume that any of them aren't? The track record of the Bible is pretty dismal.

[cbayer]

250. That is why one must read them with a questioning mind.

You must take into account the culture of the time, the translation you are using and other things that add context.

Swallowing it whole or rejecting it totally are both lazy and foolish approaches to a complex set of books that have been around a very long time.

The Bible doesn't have a track record. It's a collection of books. You can assume anything you want about them, but that doesn't make them less valid or less true.

[Gore1FL]

252. It's a collections of books that are demonstrably wrong or unprovable.

What makes them less valid and less true is exactly that.

[cbayer]

255. Ok, so reject them completely if you choose.

That's certainly your prerogative.

[Gore1FL]

260. I have before you even gave me permission.

Am I in trouble?

[Gore1FL]

200. No. It has been observed and better understood over the years.

It existed at the beginning of the universe.

[LTX]

196. And mathematics?

It exists, ergo someone made it up, right? Or is mathematic discovered?

[Gore1FL]

198. Mathematics describe how the universe operates.

We have advanced at our understanding of the universe through our continued discover of mathematical principles.

[LTX]

199. You did not answer the question.

Is mathematics invented?

[Gore1FL]

203. It depends on what you mean by "mathematics."

By "mathematics," do you mean the nature of the universe, or by "mathematics" do you mean the set of tools we use to explain the nature of the universe? The answer is "no, not human 'invented'" , and "yes, human 'invented'" respectively.

[LTX]

208. Really? My goodness, you are the first person I've encountered

who has definitively answered the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered. Perhaps you can provide some reasoning to support your remarkable solution to this eternal curiosity.

Is there a mathematics particle that governs the "nature of the universe"? Do stars obey mathematical principals by top-down imposition of those principals from some immaterial presence or force, or do they intrinsically produce those mathematical principals as part of their combustion?

Did humans "invent" the tangent, or the triangle, or the algorithm, or the algebraic equation, or irrational numbers, or varying infinities? If so, why does the universe obey our "invention"?

Please, expound.

[Gore1FL]

209. How did you not understand my answer?

You really wanted to play "gotcha," failed, and then used the lines you were going to use, anyway.


Let's Review:

This is what I said.

By "mathematics," do you mean the nature of the universe, or by "mathematics" do you mean the set of tools we use to explain the nature of the universe? The answer is "no, not human 'invented'" , and "yes, human 'invented'" respectively.

If you'd like to continue failing, please proceed, (governor).

[LTX]

211. So you simply repeat your unsupported assertion.

Perhaps you can take the time to explain how "mathematics" is equivalent to the "nature of the universe." And then maybe take a stab at explaining why the universe otherwise obeys our "invention."

[Gore1FL]

212. An assertion that apparently escapes you.

You are trying so hard to prove me wrong, you are inventing things that I have said.

I'll try to make this simple.

Based on what we currently understand, the Universe over 13.7 Billion years old. It began with a big bang. After the first generation of stars spewed their enriched (from Hydrogen and Helium) guts across the galaxies which eventually formed stars and planets. On at least one of these, life formed. Over billions of years this life evolved into more complicated life. In the last 200,000 years or so, what are anatomically modern humans arrived on the scene.

Over that two million years, man has discovered things about the natural world around them. Someone discovered that round rolled better than things of other shapes. Someone figured out a method of counting. Someone invented numbers and the numbering system. These numbers were applied to the observations and we found ways to not only explain those natural events we observed, but to apply those methods to create better tools that we could apply to other, perhaps more complicated observations. Over time people like Isaac Newton invented Calculus as a tool to even better explain how our universe works. There is a program by Wolfram called "Mathematica" which is an amazing tool that opens up incredible opportunities to better explain and even predict the world around. The path is still unfolding before us, and it's quite exciting to imagine all of the discoveries and new tools that come from those discoveries that will help us, as a race, discover even more as the cycle continues.

If you still are having comprehension problems, I can provide you with a reading list.

[LTX]

236. What about lawn darts? You left out lawn darts.

A reading list would be nice. I like to read. Maybe something about those round things that roll good.

[Gore1FL]

243. You should probably start with something simple.

I don't get the impression you're quick on the uptake.


This should get you started in basic shapes:

http://www.amazon.com/Mummy-Math-An-Adventure-Geometry/dp/0312561172/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412177817&sr=8-1&keywords=adventures+in+geometry

[cbayer]

246. Wow, you really should back off.

Impugning the intelligence of another member is really out of line. No one is trying to trap you into getting a post hidden, but you are doing a fine job of increasing the possibility that that is just what will happen.

[Gore1FL]

247. I didn't impunge the intelligence of another poster.

He is demonstrating his inability to understand basic concepts. I am providing resources he requested to solve that problem.

All you have to do is scroll up to see it.

[cbayer]

249. Okey, dokey. Just trying to give you a heads up.

I didn't alert your post, but someone might.

BTW, he is perfectly capable of understanding basic concepts. He just doesn't agree with you.

[Gore1FL]

251. I would hope that the jury bothers to read for context then.

The person to whom I am responding is clearly trolling and having tantrums while doing so.

[cbayer]

254. See, you are digging yourself in deeper here.

You are accusing the other member of trolling and having tantrums.

Good luck to you. YOu are going to need it.

[Gore1FL]

259. One only need to scroll up.

If it bothers you, alert. If not go concern troll someone else, please.

[LTX]

262. Honestly, cbayer,

there's nothing there that anyone could actually agree or disagree with. Take a look at post 212. A simply remarkable collection of vacuous non-sequiturs. I think we may be dealing with a response-bot. I floated a test post to find out . . .

[cbayer]

263. I am not sure what to make of this, but it stopped being fun some time ago.

What's a response bot?

[LTX]

264. An automated response program,

designed to converse with humans. It would certainly be clever to design one to converse on a topic littered with patent touch-points.

[cbayer]

265. If I were going to program something, I wouldn't program this.

i would try to make it a little more challenging.

[LTX]

267. It is rather embarrasingly basic. Maybe

that's the real give away that it's simply a new variation on the all too human tendency to inadvertantly embrace Poe's law.

[cbayer]

268. Inadvertently embrace Poe's law! Love it.

I have to admit that I have sometimes reread something I posted and realized that I could easily be taken for a Poe.

[LTX]

266. Of course,

it is highly unlikely that the responses are automated. Post count, sign up date . . . But its darn fun to think about. And no, I'm really not, honestly, working on any such thing right now.

[LTX]

261. Here's a little joke that seems to suit our conversation.

I'll let you fill in the punchline:

Let A be a square matrix, and call p(t) = det(tI ? A) its characteristic polynomial.

Then?

[Gore1FL]

269. Jesus became a a cracker? I don't know I haven't heard this one.

Edited to add:
How does it feel to be pwned by an "response-bot"?

You are really embarrassing yourself at this point. Please proceed.

[LTX]

195. Those "iron-age peasants" also forged the foundations of geometry, architecture, law,

and philosophy. The contemporary conceit that people who lived before "me" were necessarily dumb-fucks is one of the most aggravating arguments I encounter.

[Gore1FL]

197. We've built better understandings since that time on those topics.

We should do the same with religion.

People living before me being "necessarily dumb-fucks" is not my argument. They clearly were not as informed as we are today. To give them precident over things we actually know and can prove is idiotic. People who believe we should are the ones that are "necessarily dumb-fucks."

[LTX]

205. The evolution of abstractions is not a predicate for dismissal of the foundations on which

those abstractions are based. We have not re-created geometry, architecture, law, or philosophy from whole cloth. We have expanded on them, and used our pre-existing understanding of their fundamental principals to do so. Religion has evolved in much the same way. There is a reason why "spiritual atheists" (in all of their glorious murkiness) exist. And it has a great deal to do with the very same conundrums that faced those pitiful "iron-age peasants."

[Gore1FL]

206. We have expanded on them

The stuff that was disproven with math we eliminated. We built on the things that we proved to be true.


Religion is unproven at best, disproved at worst. People cling to the delusions of it despite the contradictions and obvious points of error. If we did that with math, we' have square wheels.

[LTX]

210. I never knew. We've "eliminated" those things that we have "disproven by math."

The color purple, gone. Oh wait, maybe we've proven that by math. I really don't know. But surely we've eliminated altruism. That notion is mathematically unsustainable. Not to mention art and literature (the latter being derisively dismissed as simple "lies" in the modern atheist canon.) And your wife and/or husband? Mathematically ridiculous. A mere interference with efficient propagation. And the sheer weight of mathematical reasoning has virtually eliminated notions of free speech, equal protection, social intercourse, table manners, and the ridiculous human conceit of "time." We're free.

[Gore1FL]

213. You really need to read for comprehension. You are embarrassing yourself. n/t

[Leontius]

219. Now you've gone to the extreme of making his worldview a paperboard cut out or some sort of

cartoon. You know you're not allowed to do that. It is a technique only allowed to those who wish to demean and ridicule religion and believers. Shame on you.

[Gore1FL]

225. He didn't do that.

His strategy appears to be purposely misunderstanding what I am posting in the hopes that his trolling will either get me to say something to get a post hidden, or get me too frustrated to continue. That's just a guess.

Putting words into people's mouths is practically all that that poster has done in response to me throughout the conversation. All one need do is scroll up through the exchange to verify this.

I suggest that the discussion would go better if he concentrated a rebuttal against what I actually have said, rather than what he wishes I said. Unfortunately, he has not. I hypothesize this is because he is unable to formulate a real argument. Sadly, I don't really think he is even trying.

While I agree that he went "to the extreme of making (something) worldview (into) a paperboard cut out or some sort of cartoon." It certainly wasn't my worldview.

[LTX]

237. Give him credit.

At the very least he's demonstrated a new variation on Poe's law.

[okasha]

215. "written by Iron Age peasants?"

Too ignorant to be worth arguing.

[Gore1FL]

217. Thanks for conceding. n/t

[okasha]

220. Not the peasants.

Try again.

[Gore1FL]

222. so you'd prefer the more technically correct "came up with" as opposed to "wrote."

OK.

During the the iron age, people of various classes collectively created and record stories that make up the bible.

If we really wanted to be technical, we could add Bronze Age, too.

[okasha]

226. I'm fine with "wrote."

Unfortunately for your assertion, there was no such thing as a literate peasant. A person who could write, even a slave, enjoyed high social status in both the Bronze and Iron Ages.

You're merely parroting an internet meme. Carry on.

[Gore1FL]

227. Your title totally contradicts the body of your post.

You clearly are not "fine with 'wrote.'" Otherwise you wouldn't have gotten all huffy about the "literate peasant" in the text of your quote.

The peasants formulated many of the stories. Others wrote them down. Some did both.

Try not to contradict yourself sentence to sentence, especially when your interaction with me is based solely on wording.

Please proceed, (governor).

[okasha]

228. Eh?

Sorry, your "response" appears to be to a post that exists only in your head.

Ta.

[Gore1FL]

235. At least something exists in my head.

All people need to do is scroll up and read the exchange. It's apparently beyond you, though.

Have a nice life. Try not to stay bewildered for too long.

[rug]

7. How do you get away with it?

[cbayer]

12. He only gets away with it because others respond.

We really should not.

[Leontius]

42. I'm begining to believe in reincarnation, one of the Three died and was reborn

just hasn't matured yet. Time will tell.

[rug]

45. Lol, the lost years.

[DreamGypsy]

59. Jesus, the missing years...

and if that's not enough, a little ditty by John about an aquatic encounter with the Man

[rug]

79. John Prine's a great songwriter.

[DreamGypsy]

81. Yes, indeed.

I was an undergraduate at the University of Chicago from 1970-74. John Prine, Steve Goodman, and Bonnie Koloc performed a number of times on campus, sometimes in small, intimate venues, then bigger concerts as they became better known. And my girlfriend and I went to a bunch of shows at the Earl of Old Town to see Steve, John, Fred and Ed Holstein, and other artists. A fantastic time for great music and artists.

...and on a lighter note

[cbayer]

83. Ha. I lived in Hyde Park during those years.

Did you ever go to The Blue Gargoyle at University Church?

It was indeed a great time to be in Chicago, wasn't it.

I also saw John Prine in small venues, both there and then later in Cambridge, MA. It remains one of the musical highlights of my life.

[DreamGypsy]

93. Wow, that's a blast from the past...

... The Blue Gargoyle. I had forgotten the name, but I'm certain I attended concerts there. I have clear recollection of Brian Bowers (autoharp) playing in a small space with wooden seats (like pews). Couldn't find any interior pictures of the Blue Gargoyle to confirm.

Did find this, though:

On Wednesday evening (4/8/09) last week, the Blue Gargoyle (5638 S. Woodlawn Ave.) closed its doors. It had been struggling for the past several months with financial problems. In their last days there, staff members and tutors worked to place their students in alternative programs around the city.

Literacy on the South Side

While there are no specific data about literacy rates in Chicago, the 2000 census and 2005 census estimate do report education attainment levels (unfortunately, a high school diploma is not a guarantee of literacy). In two neighborhoods adjacent to Hyde Park (Woodlawn and Bronzeville), about 1 in 10 adults over age twenty-five never made it to 9th grade, and about a third never graduated from high school. The WBEZ series 50-50: The Odds of Graduating reports that barely 1/3 of current students at Robeson High School are on track to graduate.

Why the Blue Gargoyle was Unique

Blue Gargoyle offered day and evening classes in literacy and GED, one-on-one tutoring in a welcoming environment, and counseling services for individuals and families, all under one roof. There was a family literacy program, where parents pursued their GED classes and tutoring, while their infants, toddlers, and young children participated in early childhood education. Parents learned not only how to read to kids, but why it was important.

[cbayer]

94. The Blue Gargoyle was a coffeehouse in my father's church.

It was a meeting place for activists and radicals of all kinds and was monitored by the FBI from the University Club across the street.

They also had music, poetry readings and all kinds of assorted activities.

The article you bring shows a change in location and also a change in mission. I had lost track of it years ago, but I knew it was no longer in the University Church.

One of my fondest memories is eating meatloaf sandwiches and making protest signs. Bryan Bowers is also included in that memory.

Ah, those were the days.

[cbayer]

80. His intro to The Missing Years is hilarious.

What a treasure he is.

[cbayer]

8. How does who get away with it?

Anyone who doesn't read the bible with a critical eye, picking out what is meaningful from what is not, is a literalist. And that leads to all kinds of problems.

You obviously love flame bait, but, honestly there is a certain knack that you lack.

Please provide the dictionary definition that would show that those who embrace some parts of the bible and reject others are hypocrites. Wait, you can't? What?

And please provide bible quotes that say that gays are the only ones forbidden to marry.

Seriously, you might need a new hobby.

[okasha]

13. And he should alert Greek scholars

that he's discovered the correct translation of "molokos." There have been academic debates about that for decades.

"Cherry picking" is another horse that's long ago gone for Alpo. Cartoonist may love lighting matches, but he doesn't have an atom of originality.

[cbayer]

14. Well he has an acute sense and is here to educate all of us.

His life may go on here, but the light is becoming less and less bright.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. The whole fucking thing isn't meaningful.

Not in a sense beyond meaning some people think they find looking at random clouds

[AtheistCrusader]

16. You'd be hard pressed to pick a chapter in the bible that isn't a horrible fucked up

Thing to promulgate, to humans, on one level or another.

[Leontius]

19. You know you're right all that shit about all are brothers, love one another, all are equal

who needs that crap . All for me screw you that's the ticket.

[cbayer]

20. Yeah! And all that crap about peace, charity and social justice,

screw that garbage.

It's all evil I tell you!!

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I note you didn't cite a specific section.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. The problem with the Sermon on the mount is that it contains some rather

difficult stuff to accept.

Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7

Those bits come right after the alleged son of Yahweh announces that the laws of the OT are still in force and that those who break them are going to burn in hell.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Naw maaaaan, that's cherry picking! No fair!

It is a bit too easy, isn't it? I wonder, did that poster actually read the fucking book?

I often wonder, how any believer could still be a believer, after doing so.

[BlueStreak]

75. You'd be hard pressed to find any passages that wasn't grosslyy changed

during one of the hundreds of rewrites over the years. Most of that nonsense wasn't even written in Christ's supposed time. Most of it was compiled centuries later, and then rewritten over and over and over through various language translations and re-interpretations to suit the needs of the church enterprise and the political climate of the time.

The whole thing is worthless garbage at this point. No connection whatsoever to anything holy, even if there might have actually been a holy event 2000 years ago.

[longship]

26. Robert M. Price, "The Bible Geek", calls it "Bible as a ventriloquist dummy."

His podcast, The Bible Geek is always entertaining and more than a bit controversial. A former evangelical preacher, now an avowed atheist, he holds court in his podcasts. He takes Biblical criticism to quite an art. (Yup, he's a Republican, but I still cannot help but listen to every one of his podcasts.)

He has no love for religious fundamentalists, or the current religious intrusions into politics. Don't ask me why he still remains a Republican.

[rock]

27. Calling it the Hypocrites Handbook

Would not be hypocritical, see?

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

28. Cherry-picking can have a positive side, though.

Once you can admit that none of it is really untouchable...literally and absolutely true beyond question...the practice of discernment can then be unleashed to pick and choose what compels as as more true. Or, as Jefferson said, to pick out the diamonds in the dung hill. So, once we are liberated from and cured of the disease of dogmatic certainty, some well-reasoned cherry-picking can serve us well, at least from the viewpoint of most liberal religion. Rather than a dirty word, it can become a badge of honor.

[cbayer]

29. Agree. Very well said.

[Cartoonist]

30. The Hypocrites in the Temple

The issue is whether the Bible is the word of God or just some book written by some guy. How can God say something on one page and then contradict himself on another? How can Jesus say, "Above all, love one another", and then condemn adulterers? How can Pat Robertson condemn adulterers and be one himself?

If you accept that the bible is just a book like any other, then sure, there are passages that yield good quotes, but so what? Atheists write books with good quotes as well. The difference is that no atheist has appointed himself God or the official spokesperson for God. No atheist points to a book written by an atheist and declares that what is written there should be considered divine law.

Cherry picking is an act of hypocrisy if you contend that the bible is the word of God. It is believing that what is written on one page while ignoring what is written on another. If you reject the authority of the bible, then you can't cherry pick from it because you've already rejected its uniformity. You can select one passage and reject another. You can make a cherry pie using only the best cherries, but a believer has to use all the cherries, even the bad ones. I'll pass on the Christian pie and have a slice of good atheist pie, thank you.

[cbayer]

32. It doesn't have to be either the literal word of god or just some book written by some guy.

There are lots of possible things it could be in between those two option.

It is clearly a collection of books written during different eras and translated repeatedly by different cultures. Even those that believe that the words came from god or were guided by god recognize that man played a part and that man is fallible.

No theist has appointed himself god either, though there are some religions that believe that some humans have a special relationship with god. Of course no atheists think this because they don't believe in a god. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

As noted by others in this thread, cherry picking is a critical and thoughtful thing to do when it comes to the bible. It is only literalists that think otherwise. Are you a literalist?

You most certainly can select one passage and reject another. Where did you get the authority to decide that no one can do that? Overall, your take on this sounds very, very dogmatic.

You are welcome to your atheist pie and I think you should enjoy it. And those who make a christian pie or a muslim pie or a jewish pie or a hindu pie and on and on should also be welcome to theirs. You don't get to decide what kind of pie they eat.

You might want to try some humble pie, though.

[trotsky]

68. It definitely cannot be the literal word of god for SOME of it.

But it CAN be 100% the work of fallible human beings tied to the morals and ideas of their time.

[Leontius]

35. There is no atheist pie.

It's quite simple to urge us to love one another, it kind of cancels out hate. As for condemning adultery if you don't think adultery is wrong then I would suggest you need a serious lesson in morality and what the meaning of love is.

[Cartoonist]

43. Judge not, lest ye be judged

That's a cherry I picked. I guess you did too, seeing as how you judge adulterers. By the way, I made no judgement about adultery. I was just referring to Pat Robertson's admitted act of adultery and his subsequent condemnation of it. That's cherry picking too.

[cbayer]

51. I am interested in what your take on adulterers is from a moral or ethical viewpoint?

Anytime you want to share it, I will be ready to hear it.

[Brettongarcia]

73. Probably plucking out the eyes of adulterers is too extreme. And stoning them to death.

Refusing to kill them is better. On the grounds of forgiveness.

All have sinned.

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

[Leontius]

82. If I thought you had any understanding of what that verse means your comment would

make a point but I feel sure you don't so there's that.

[Cartoonist]

87. So, what is your understanding?

And which version of the bible do you read? Whose sermon on the topic do you agree with. Are you psychic? It appears you KNOW all about my thought process. And lastly, are YOU judging ME?

application pending

[cbayer]

89. Uh oh!! Looks like you are about to join the legions that are being placed on ignore!

Fortunately for you, that just means that he won't be able to read what you write, but you will still be able to partake in the pearls of wisdom that he imparts on a regular basis.

Thank heavens for that!

[Leontius]

108. There will be much wailing and nashing of teeth.

[mr blur]

100. Touch of arrogance there?

Or perhaps you have those famed "other ways of knowing"?

[Leontius]

107. Just based on experience and the patterns of ignorance some posters show

in their understanding of scripture and the inability to fit pieces together to form a complete teaching.

[Brettongarcia]

74. Great statement by Cartoonist

Ms cbayer is defensive here because she explicitly supported cherry-picking by name, less than a year ago.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Why bother?

This "picking out the diamonds from the dung" implies that the picker already knows how to discern diamonds from dung. Toss the stupid book out, it offers nothing you don't already know, and plenty that is just shit.

[Cartoonist]

31. A cleric speaks.

http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php

In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.

[okasha]

44. Irrelevant.

Different faith, different book.

[cbayer]

48. Its a very weak thread in terms of supporting this argument.

It contains the same words, but in an entirely different context.

[okasha]

52. That seems to be a recurring problem with this poster.

Maybe he can find a mosque somewhere with "Santa Claus" in its name.

[cbayer]

53. He's on a mission, a crusade, if you will.

[trotsky]

70. Stay classy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=153347

Thanks for doing your part to make "this a welcoming and intellectually diverse forum."

[mr blur]

63. Same god.

[Brettongarcia]

72. Yes. Islam says its Allah is the same as the God of the Jews

Muslims just say that they follow God or Allah, better.

"Cartoonist" is doing a great job: hope he keeps up the great work!

By the way it would of course be extremely easy to find Christian fundamentalists that told us to honor the entire Bible; just research "biblical inerrancy." Vs. "infallibility.

[okasha]

112. Same irrelevance.

[Brettongarcia]

138. Only if you are a Christocentric Islamophobe

The broader view sees Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as "Abrahamic Religions," believing in essentially same God.

[okasha]

193. Still irrelevant.

Different book, different beliefs.

Keep digging.

[trotsky]

69. But the exact same religious reasoning. Therefore, relevant.

Prove him wrong and you'll have a point.

[customerserviceguy]

33. Every religion

with sects (and as far as I know, that's pretty much all of them) plays the cherry picking game. It's not about what's correct or what's incorrect, it's about new 'leaders' creating factions to split off from the main group, so that they can enjoy their own mini-papacy, or whatever you want to call it.

Lurking inside every charismatic religious leader is a potential dictator.

[Starboard Tack]

34. If you have ever picked cherries or any other fruit, you wouldn't need to ask.

Do you believe all you read in a book, magazine or newspaper? Why should the anthology of books called the "Bible" be any different?
That said, it looks like you just did some fine cheery picking of your own.

[Cartoonist]

36. Definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

Cherry picking is not just the selection of a single idea. It is picking one idea from a source while ignoring all other ideas from that same source while holding that the whole source must be considered altogether. Choosing one idea from the bible and saying the bible is wrong about everything else is not cherry picking. Choosing one idea from the bible and saying the bible is still the word of God, despite the contradiction of the same idea, THAT'S cherry picking. That's also hypocrisy.

Choosing one idea from a magazine article and ignoring the rest is not cherry picking because I am only acknowledging that one single idea. I am not saying that the whole article is correct and then just picking the only correct idea in the article.

If you think I am wrong about my interpretation of the phrase cherry picking, I'm cool with that. Just don't cherry pick my posts.

[Promethean]

38. You are giving them too much credit Cartoonist.

This thread in itself is the perfect demonstration. Not one theist here addresses the actual substance of your posts. They only pick at the bits that are only a small part of your overall point. This assuages their cognitive dissonance by letting them pretend arguing against that small point negates the rest of what you are saying. Yes it is intellectually bankrupt but they don't care.

[okasha]

39. That's because there is no substance.

The claim that all "believers" must accept the entire BIble as word-for word literal truth or own up to hypocricy is pure bullshit. It's been discredited here before. There's no reason to cover this ground again.

[Gore1FL]

125. That's fine, but calling the rare uinoffensive bits the "Word of God" doesn't work convincingly.

It's mostly just a terrible book written by peasants who lived in an oppressive culture and lacked information. There is nothign divine about it.

[cbayer]

49. Them? Them who?

And your assumptions about who is a theist and who is not only highlight your own prejudice.

Them? Us? Cognitively dissonant? Intellectually bankrupt? Really?

[Starboard Tack]

40. OK, let's examine what you actually said.

How do they get away with it?

Get away with what? And who are "they"?
If you are talking about the "Duck people" and other fringe religious nuts, then I would say they don't "get away with" anything, except within their own circle of fellow extremists. To use these extremists as an example to indict all believers, is cherry picking.

It is picking one idea from a source while ignoring all other ideas from that same source while holding that the whole source must be considered altogether. Choosing one idea from the bible and saying the bible is wrong about everything else is not cherry picking. Choosing one idea from the bible and saying the bible is still the word of God, despite the contradiction of the same idea, THAT'S cherry picking. That's also hypocrisy.

I doubt more than a very few Christians believe that the Bible is the actual word of God. Many believe that the Bible is inspired by God, yet recognize that the many books were written by different individuals over the course of hundreds of years. Many others believe that the Bible is merely a collection of books by unknown authors, some of which they find inspirational and others not so much. I think most Christians consider the bulk of Biblical stories as allegory, rather than historical fact.

Bottom line is that "they" don't get away with it any more than other extremists, unless you take them seriously, in which case, they got away with it only in the sense that you took them seriously.

[Cartoonist]

41. God wrote it, I believe it

Saw that on a bumper sticker. The "They" I am talking about all have one of those stickers on their car or truck (figuratively speaking). Those with objective minds, or possessors of doubt, are not cherry pickers. Specifically, the "They" I am addressing are the spokespersons who get on TV or stand behind a pulpit and quote something from the bible and expect the rubes to believe it even though they know that there is another passage in the bible that contradicts what they just quoted.

Anyone here think that's honest? If so, please identify yourself so I can put you on ignore. I see that there are more replies here than those that I can see, so some of you whom I have on ignore already, are pissing into the wind as far as I'm concerned. So don't expect a reply. If you could grant me one favor, if I have you on ignore, please do the same for me.

As for getting away with it, I want to know why these charlatans aren't being shouted down for their hypocrisy. Is it religious privilege? Is it because we're supposed to be nice to religious figures out of respect? Are we supposed to HONOR liars and con-men because they represent one of the established cults? Anyone pulling that shit on me in my presence will be called on it. Those that put up with this shit are cowards, or are just as guilty as those bearers of false witness.

[cbayer]

50. A bumper sticker? OMG.

You want to address those people?

I suggest you find another place, because they are not here.

Lol, please put all those that disagree with you on ignore. Please, I beg you.

You become more and more humorous, which is a total treat at this time of night.

[okasha]

55. As I recall that bumper sticker,

it actually says "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." No mention of writing.

I just put one crusader on ignore. He wasn't entertaining, though.

[BlueJazz]

57. Excuse the illogical response but: Amen to that.

It reminds me (speaking for myself) of the people who despise someone until they die.
They then want to relieve themselves by saying: Don't speak ill of the dead and all that crap..

I say fuck it..if somebody is a royal asshole and a son-of-a-bitch while alive, they're still are a royal asshole and SOB while dead.

I always liked what Bette Davis said about Joan Crawford. (They HATED each other)
When Joan died and a reporter asked bette what she thought, she said: My parents always taught me to speak good toward the dead... so...Bette says: "Joan Crawford is dead..Good."

[LTX]

65. "The rubes . . ."

You have a very high opinion of yourself, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it translates into a smugly generalized low opinion of your fellow humans. Which it seems to have done in your case.

I suggest you spend some time with "the rubes." You might be surprised to find that they are simply doing their best to provide and to make sense of a cruelly indifferent world. And you will undoubtedly be surprised at how "the rubes" much more often than not forgive and share what they have with "the know-it-all-sophomores" (likely because every family seems to have one, and even they need to eat).

[Cartoonist]

77. Offensitivity

Pushed one of your buttons did I? Sorry about that. Just going for a little levity. It's a rather mild term, the definitions I found online wouldn't make a schoolmarm blush. Sorry if you're offended by that term, too.

rube (rb)
n. Slang
An unsophisticated country person.
[Probably from Rube, nickname for Reuben.]

Let's see, what are some terms the faithful use when they are simply doing their best to provide and to make sense of a cruelly indifferent world.

Faggot
Baby killer
N****r
Feminazi
Beaner

I could go on, but you get the picture.
Is your name Eve by the way?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025595766

Just added:
I admit to being a little slow sometimes. Eve is not the character in the cartoon, but the title of the strip.

[cbayer]

78. You know, this group is populated by some who constitute "the faithful"

and your making a broad brush statement saying that they use foul and bigoted terms is really wrong.

I know you are quite concerned about your hides and your ignore list, so you might want to be a little more thoughtful in your attacks on those who see the world differently than you.

I could go on, but you get the picture. BTW, the Eve in the cartoon is the reasonable character asking for tolerance of other points of view. You name clearly is not Eve.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. You know you are not a host here and don't need to scold people, right?

This is not a safe haven for the religious. You have your safe haven, the hrm interfaith group. You can hang out there and not be offended as much as you wish.

[LTX]

85. Painting in stereotypes is an easy and facile past-time.

You seem to do little else. Perhaps you can offer some indication that you've given the matter actual thought. Why do you suppose humans have demonstrated a persistent proclivity for religiosity and/or spirituality?

[Cartoonist]

88. You've got a bad case

of offensitivity.


application pending

[LTX]

90. A curious non sequitur.

If you wish to avoid discussion, perhaps you should find some outlet other than a discussion board. In any event, my question remains, and I am happy to discuss the matter should you so choose.

[cbayer]

91. But your application is pending, LTX!

You must be very careful and very afraid.

[Cartoonist]

97. I choose not

At least, with you.

I love intelligent discussion. I hop on threads and even start my own. It is a bit annoying though when some clueless person or some seriously deluded theist with persecution issues acts condescending. That's one of the reasons I steer clear of the Christian Group and all other Faith Groups. I also frequent the Atheists & Agnostics Group. I note that two of the people I ignore are blocked from that group. I don't wonder why.



application accepted

[LTX]

101. I see. Perhaps you can direct me to one of your "intelligent" discussions.

I'm sure it would be enlightening.

[Gore1FL]

253. Scroll up and read the posts that aren't yours n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

95. Are you trying to suggest religiosity and/or spirituality are innately "human" characteristics?

If so, I don't think you've given this subject as much thought as you think you have.

[LTX]

96. My question was why humans have demonstrated a persistent

proclivity for religiosity and/or spirituality. Are you suggesting we, as a species, haven't demonstrated such a proclivity?

And perhaps you can explain why you put "human" in quotes. Are you also suggesting that there is some other species that demonstrates the proclivity (to the extent you agree that such a proclivity exists).

[Act_of_Reparation]

106. No other species wears shoes.

Last edited Mon Sep 29, 2014, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

But it would be pretty goddamned silly to say wearing shoes is an innately human thing to do. Rather, it is an emergent property of intellect and creativity, spurred by need. There's nothing biological about it, nothing connecting it to the chemicals that make humans human.

Religion falls into the same category. There's no gene for it; it is an emergent property of human society, constructed to satisfy a need or needs. It's a pretty simple answer to a fairly simple question. All you have to do ask yourself "what does religion do?", and you get your answer. You don't need to fall back on an argument from naturalism, just crack open a psychology textbook and flip to the chapter on Maslow.

This is his hierarchy of needs:



As I hope you can see, there are a slew of needs in there institutionalized or individual religion can satisfy. But religion isn't the only product on the market to take care of these needs -- it was merely the most accessible for the longest period of time -- and it has endured for the same reason shoes have endured: because it has been passed down from one generation to the next for thousands of years.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something is popular that there is a biological reason for it. Humans are as much a product of their environments, if not more so, than their genetic makeup. Never mind that even suggesting ideas or concepts are genetically heritable displays a fundamental misunderstanding of genetic heritability.

[LTX]

109. Is there anything biological about "intellect and creativity"?

The chemicals that make humans human also make humans intelligent and creative. Just as the chemicals that make ants ants also make them a eusocial species. In the case of ants, would you say that eusociality is an "emergent property"? (Despite appearances, that is not an entirely facetious question.)

Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree that intellect and creativity can be source materials for emergent, widely variable, and fungible social practices in humans. And I am a rather vociferous critic at times of the just-so stories that have proliferated through evolutionary psychology.

I do question, however, whether the tendency for agency-based thinking and the orientation toward intention-based accounts in human thought are learned constructs, or hard-wired starting points. That is, whether those very things that produce a "god" explanation aren't extant in the human computer as a direct consequence of evolution and chemical composition. "Supernaturalism" as an explanatory tool gives every indication of long pre-dating "organized religion" as a social construct, and there are exceedingly few clues that intra-species organization of supernatural explanations (or religion, broadly defined) itself has a definable commencement point.

There are several fairly recent articles exploring cognitive development in children, postulating that innate, agency-based thinking during developmental stages is, in effect, indicative of innate religiosity. I think the case can be (and has been at times) over-stated. But the reasoning is not entirely unpersuasive, and I don't think it is beyond the pale to consider "religious" thinking as chemically integral to the very intellect and creativity you say gives rise to such thinking.

All that being said, my question wasn't actually addressed to whether religiosity and/or spirituality is a hard-wired component of humans. It was why religiosity and spirituality are a persistent proclivity. In that regard, your example of shoes is apt. They are indeed as persistent a proclivity as religion. I don't envision the human proclivity to wear shoes fading out any time soon, and neither do I envision the human proclivity toward religiosity and spirituality fading out any time soon.

In the case of religion and spirituality, I don't think they will likely fade away soon because humans, as uniquely universal constructors among the species we know of, necessarily harness effective immaterialities for observation and manipulation of the material world. While useful, effective immaterialities are also profoundly disturbing (not to mention occasionally disruptive) to human cognition. They are, by their very nature, gateways to a persistent perception of "otherness" in the world around us, and that perception of "otherness" is very fertile ground for religiosity.

[Act_of_Reparation]

118. Stephen Jay Gould would say no.

And I would agree.

The chemicals that make humans human also make humans intelligent and creative. Just as the chemicals that make ants ants also make them a eusocial species. In the case of ants, would you say that eusociality is an "emergent property"? (Despite appearances, that is not an entirely facetious question.)

Yes.

There's no gene for "sociability", just like there's no gene for intelligence or creativity. Eusociality is observed in Hymenoptera and Isoptera because these species evolved to produce phermones, which are believed to influence behavior. Again, genetics produces phermones, of which eusociality is an emergent property.

I do question, however, whether the tendency for agency-based thinking and the orientation toward intention-based accounts in human thought are learned constructs, or hard-wired starting points.

That's not what's being argued here.

"Agency-based thinking" isn't the same thing as religion; again, religion exists simply to satisfy a need caused by such thinking. And again, I would be reticent to suggest this kind of thinking is hard-wired at the genetic level. If I had to take a stab at it, I would think it is simply a habit of the mind because humans themselves are self-aware agents. This habit would understandably be more profound in children, who have to learn to differentiate the qualities of the animate and the inanimate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. Very few?

Like about 68 million Americans? More than the populations of California and Texas combined?

Yes, that's a little more than 25% of Christians in this country, so they are a minority. But they are not an insignificant minority, and when you're dealing with a population that reaches into the hundreds of millions "very few" is a patently dishonest word to be using. These people are not as difficult to find as you seem to think they are.

[Starboard Tack]

113. You seem to be of the opinion that 68 million is a lot.

Maybe that's because you live in that bubble named USA. Newsflash! There are about 7 billion of us that don't take the bible quite as seriously and certainly not as literally as you. Good luck spreading the word to your hinterland.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. Do you want a bigger shovel or are you fine digging that hole at your current rate?

[Starboard Tack]

129. We don't all live in the caliphate Warren.

Raise your periscope occasionally. It's actually pretty nice out here.

[Warren Stupidity]

188. Is that the actual name of Ark Bayer? Which one of you is the caliph?

[Starboard Tack]

204. You are a riot Warren

You should be on the radio with that kind of humor.

[Warren Stupidity]

218. when you are handed your hat the polite thing to do is to say "thank you".

[Starboard Tack]

231. Thankyou Warren

[Act_of_Reparation]

122. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, even on a yacht.

Or do you mean to tell me you've been conducting some seriously intensive demographic polling during your assorted 1%-er vacations across the globe?

Somehow I doubt it.

But that's neither here nor there, because your argument is laughably obtuse. You're saying 68 million people is an insignificant number because there are 7 billion people on planet Earth. But these 68 million people are politically active in the sole superpower in this unipolar geopolitical landscape. These jackasses aren't confined to my back-fucking-yard in the hinterlands. They influence elections. They influence domestic policy. They influence foreign policy. They even influence domestic policies in foreign fucking countries. Ask a gay man living in Uganda -- or dock your goddamned yacht in Gaza and ask a Palestinian or two how insignificant literalist Americans really are.

Though I imagine such a notion would offend your monied sensibilities, I am, despite being an impecunious flyover state Philistine, better traveled than most.

[cbayer]

124. Lol, I'm having one of the servants type this, so please excuse

any errors. You know how they can be.

OMG, your idea is so, so far off the mark that it actually made me laugh out loud. What is driving it? Surely not fact or actual knowledge. Jealousy, perhaps?

[Starboard Tack]

134. Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

If not, you may want to look it up. Your post is a perfect example.
Any valid points you may have are lost in your desire to attack me and what you perceive as my lifestyle.
If by 1%-er, you mean wealthy, then nothing could be further from the truth. If I lived in your land of milk and honey, I would fall right on the poverty line. My "yacht" might buy me a shack in Appallachia. Sorry if my life choices offend you sensibilities.

If your "superpower" were peddling religion to the rest of us, then you might have a point. Maybe you'd care to clarify how a gay man in Uganda is being affected by your backwater fundies.
And I have talked to Palestinians, and Israelis, as well as others from around the world, about US foreign policy and the influence of Christian fundamentalists.

Now, if you want a conversation, you might want to be a tad more civil. Meanwhile, I have some dolphins to play with.

[Act_of_Reparation]

181. Yes, I do.

You, on the other hand, do not. So, allow me to enlighten you:

An ad hominem is a counter-argument that fallaciously impugns the character of the opponent rather than addressing his or her points. I addressed your points, right here:

Or do you mean to tell me you've been conducting some seriously intensive demographic polling during your assorted 1%-er vacations across the globe?

Somehow I doubt it.

But that's neither here nor there, because your argument is laughably obtuse. You're saying 68 million people is an insignificant number because there are 7 billion people on planet Earth. But these 68 million people are politically active in the sole superpower in this unipolar geopolitical landscape. These jackasses aren't confined to my back-fucking-yard in the hinterlands. They influence elections. They influence domestic policy. They influence foreign policy. They even influence domestic policies in foreign fucking countries. Ask a gay man living in Uganda -- or dock your goddamned yacht in Gaza and ask a Palestinian or two how insignificant literalist Americans really are.

I clearly pointed out 1) that you lack sufficient data to support your claim that the sweeping majority of the world's 2 billion some-odd Christians don't take the Bible literally, and 2) that even if your claim is correct, it is irrelevant because those that do take the Bible literally command influence disproportionate to their numbers.

You, on other hand, brought nothing to the table whatsoever. Instead, you saw fit to allege that I am some fucking pastoral backwater hillbilly plagued by geographically induced ignorance, and that alone is reason to dismiss my criticisms of your fantastical kumbaya-ridden worldview.

In other words, your argument is ad hominem.

I'm from Fairfield County, Connecticut by the way. No doubt your friends at the yacht club have heard of it.

Maybe you'd care to clarify how a gay man in Uganda is being affected by your backwater fundies.

I guess it isn't easy to keep up on current events when you're busy touring the world in your "inexpensive" yacht. No matter, all questions are answered here.

And I have talked to Palestinians, and Israelis, as well as others from around the world, about US foreign policy and the influence of Christian fundamentalists.

Well, tarry not! Best submit your findings to a reputable journal before you get scooped. If you need some suggestions, I'd be happy to help you find one with a sufficient impact factor.

Now, if you want a conversation, you might want to be a tad more civil.

If it is civility you want, then my advice to you is to lead by example.

[beam me up scottie]

192. cbayer was shocked to find out that Pat Robertson and Louis Gohmer are islamophobic

And yet she was so well informed about the issue in general that she was outraged by the "significant islamophobia by some of the most outspoken and media savvy atheists"

Where does she get her information?

[Starboard Tack]

202. "1%-er vacations across the globe"

Right! Nothing ad hominem about your post.
You have no clue about me or my lifestyle Mr Fairfield County. I have never belonged to a yacht club in my life. YMMV

I am definitely a 1%-er in the sense that my carbon footprint is less than 1% of the poorest person in Fairfield County. We don't all live on yachts, or in marinas. Some of us live on the actual ocean, where we make our own electricity and water and catch our own dinner. I have no idea why you bear such resentment towards me for my life choices. Right now, we're picking up the pieces, and burying our dead, after one of the most devastating hurricanes to hit Baja California. Real 1%-er kinda stuff.

I live in predominantly Catholic parts of the world, where people don't take the bible quite as literally as your fundie nutjobs in the US. Maybe, like them, you don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

Regarding gays, I have fought for gay rights since the sixties and am proud of the accomplishments we made, as are many of my friends who are now happily married. I haven't been to Uganda, but I if I were there, I would fight for their rights too. I have a daughter presently on the front line, fighting the ebola virus in Nigeria. So, I am fully aware of the ills facing many Africans.

In terms of civility, might I suggest you think before assuming anything, and treat others as you would like to be treated. I learned that one when I was a Christian. Some things just stick, I guess.

Peace.

[Act_of_Reparation]

223. Nope, nothing ad hominem about it at all.

You seem to think insults or jabs are ad hominems. They aren't. Again, an ad hominem is a rebuttal that attempts to discredit a claim based only the character of the person making it. My rebuttals are on-topic and empirically and/or rationally justified. Just because they are couched in acerbic wit doesn't make them ad hominems.

I am definitely a 1%-er in the sense that my carbon footprint is less than 1% of the poorest person in Fairfield County. We don't all live on yachts, or in marinas. Some of us live on the actual ocean, where we make our own electricity and water and catch our own dinner. I have no idea why you bear such resentment towards me for my life choices. Right now, we're picking up the pieces, and burying our dead, after one of the most devastating hurricanes to hit Baja California. Real 1%-er kinda stuff.

You're not paying attention. I don't give a rat's ass about boats or the people who choose to pilot them. I do, however, object to your classist elitism, the odious high-cultured snobbery permeating your every contribution to this thread. You assume that because I encounter, with a degree of regularity, biblical literalists that I live in the far reaches of the wilderness, and that I am therefore uncultured, untraveled, and ultimately inferior to yourself. It is clear your respect for people is at least partly dependent upon the region in which they live, and whether or not they have the disposable income to bounce around the globe for months at a time.

I also object to a privileged, monied man wed to a Cornell-educated medical professional making patently Romney-esque statements like, "My carbon footprint is less than 1% of the poorest person in Fairfield County". Yeah? The next time you're in Bridgeport (you know, the city where they make the yachts), be sure to let the 18.4% of the city's citizens living below the poverty line that they aren't taking environmentalism as seriously as you.

I live in predominantly Catholic parts of the world, where people don't take the bible quite as literally as your fundie nutjobs in the US. Maybe, like them, you don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was from New England.

I was raised Catholic. My grandfather was a deacon. I attended Catholic school for 8 years. I was an altar boy. I was confirmed.

Do I think Catholics are Christians? Gee, I don't know. Since you obviously know more about me than I do, why don't you enlighten me?

Regarding gays, I have fought for gay rights since the sixties and am proud of the accomplishments we made, as are many of my friends who are now happily married. I haven't been to Uganda, but I if I were there, I would fight for their rights too. I have a daughter presently on the front line, fighting the ebola virus in Nigeria. So, I am fully aware of the ills facing many Africans.

I also object to irrelevant braggadocio.

I never said you didn't support equal rights for gays. I never said you didn't know anything about Africa. I never ventured a guess as to what you would do if you ever found yourself in Uganda. You asked, in a particularly snide manner, what American evangelicals had to do with the treatment of gays in Uganda. I told you. Case closed.

In terms of civility, might I suggest you think before assuming anything, and treat others as you would like to be treated. I learned that one when I was a Christian. Some things just stick, I guess.

That's pretty funny, considering you've done nothing but demonstrate yourself to be completely and utterly unacquainted these rather fundamental precepts. Or do you not recall that the incident that sparked this exchange was your assumption (an actual ad hominem, if you are still in need of a concrete example) that I "lived in a bubble" "in the hinterlands"?

Perhaps you don't. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't differentiate between deliberate and accidental rudeness. Say what you will of the simple folk wandering the vast expanse of middle America... at least they have manners.

[Starboard Tack]

230. OK

[Starboard Tack]

233. I just checked out your website

Very enlightening, to say the least. Have a wonderful life.

[Warren Stupidity]

135. Of course no numbers for literalism among the other 1.9B christians

are being given - instead the non-American Christians are just lumped in with the entire world population. Oh and fundamentalism within Islam - another 2.2B people - is rampant.

The dishonesty being displayed in this sub-thread is stunning.

According to demographic projections, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian fundamentalists will gain significant ground against their liberal and secular counterparts by 2050, even surpassing them in some cases, Belfer Center Fellow Eric Kaufmann said at last week's International Security Program (ISP) brownbag presentation.

Kaufmann, a joint fellow with ISP and the Initiative on Religion in International Affairs, outlined fertility trends within religious groups and the impact this may have on regional, national, and global politics and security in his talk, "Religious Fundamentalism as the End of History? The Political Demography of the Abrahamic Faiths."

The increase in the size of a religion's fundamentalist population can change the local and even national politics of a country. During the twentieth century, conservative Protestants increased from little more than a third of the white Protestant total (among those born in 1900) to almost two-thirds (for those born after 1975). Only a quarter of this effect was down to changes in switching patterns, the rest accruing to demography. Indeed, one graph showed the relationship between a state’s non-Hispanic White total fertility rate (TFR) in 2002 and the percent vote for George Bush in 2004. At one end of the spectrum was Utah, which had the highest TFR and percentage of people who voted for Bush, and on the other end was Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18824/demographic_projections_predict_fundamentalist_populations_surpassing_secular_counterparts.html

"just a few" - "view from a yacht".

[beam me up scottie]

191. ^^^^ this ^^^^

Out-fucking-standing!

[Warren Stupidity]

104. "I doubt more than a very few Christians believe that the Bible is the actual word of God"

Fundamentalist Christians believe exactly that. The emergence of fundamentalist Christianity was in reaction to modernist "liberal" Christians over, primarily, the issue of biblical inerrancy. Fundamentalists account for something like 25% or more of the population of the US, depending on how they are categorized.

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

[Starboard Tack]

139. I guess you need to get out there and educate that 25% Warren

I doubt it is more than 2 or 3 per cent in the rest of the world.
Also, the 25% who claim to believe it is the literal word of God, obviously haven't read it. If they had, then they would realize the absurdity of such a notion. Do you know any biblical literalists who believe the earth is flat, as the bible claims?

[Warren Stupidity]

156. view from a yacht.

You've been presented with the data. You made a stupid blunder up thread and rather than either walk away or admit that you are wrong, you just keep digging a deeper hole. it must be difficult being so right when you are so wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

184. You mean "view from outside your provincial box", Warren

Thankfully, the world does not revolve around your bible belt bunker. You can cherry pick the data all you want, but 25 million, or 100 million is a tiny minority of the world I live in.
But feel free to keep digging your hole in the holler.
BTW, we don't use shovels on "yachts". Bilge pumps work just fine.

[Warren Stupidity]

187. No I meant "view from a yacht", that is why I typed "view from a yacht".

Had I meant something else I would have typed some other words.

As I noted elsewhere, fundamentalism, literalism, is trending toward the majority viewpoint across the planet, across all major religions. The planet is besotted with religious loons. Probably not encountered much from yacht clubs though.

Shoveling, and in particular hole digging, is a metaphorical endeavor in the sense being used here, and if you aren't familiar with metaphors, perhaps your shipmate can clue you in, as they are her go to excuse for why the bible, or any other holy book, isn't simply a pantload - another metaphor.

[Starboard Tack]

207. You rock, Warren! Just like Gelliebeans says

You absolutely fucking rock!

[Gelliebeans]

194. You rock

[Tikki]

54. Ask a pastor to sermon on hypocrisy without quoting the bible...

They have no way to get around it without antiquated speak.


Tikki

[okasha]

56. "Sermon" is not a verb.

[cbayer]

98. I've probably heard as many sermons as just about anybody.

And I have heard sermons that talked about hypocrisy without quoting the bible.

But even if a sermon about hypocrisy mentioned the bible, why would that be a problem?

[Tikki]

110. Seems as if the term 'hypocrisy' gets lumped in with the sins... forgive and move on...

It is a life style. It has been manipulated into an art form and many feel no guilt or shame living it
in fact they celebrate it.

Many of these folks are Christians...someone is not getting the message through to them.

And before you say it's like thou shall not kill or adultery or lust or be a slob...it is not like those.

Tikki

[cbayer]

114. I'm not sure I am following you here.

I've not heard of hypocrisy being lumped in with other sins.

[Tikki]

116. Do you believe the message that hypocrisy is destructive to human life is....

getting out to most who attend to organized religion ?

I don't.....


Tikki

[cbayer]

123. Hypocrisy can be very serious or not serious at all.

And I don't know what you mean by "getting out to most who attend to organized religion".

Hypocrisy can be seen in many places, religious or not, and while there may be hypocrites who are religious their are many religious who are not.

I am still not getting your point here.

[Warpy]

58. There are so many contradictions in it that it invintes cherrypicking

Even without those, it remains a Bronze Age compilation of all the various hero legends and laws from various priesthoods around the eastern Mediterranean.

It's a good mythic history and I really think anyone in Europe or the Americas needs a good acquaintanceship with it in order to understand a lot of our art and literature, but I don't find much usefulness as a spiritual or legal guide. IOW, we've moved on past the Bronze Age, with one glaring exception: there are scores of references encouraging generosity to the poor while the rich are given no exemptions for bad behavior just because they're rich.

And that last bit is how we know that right wing Christians have never actually read the book, preferring to listen to preachers who are just as ignorant as they are conflating GOP talking points with the bible and waving it around like some sort of talisman against evil.

As for the KJV, it's a bad Enlgish translation of the bad Greek translation of things that were written down at least 100 years after the supposed crucifixion. Paul, author of Corinthians, was a huckster who saw the mass marketing potential in a feel-good breakaway Jewish sect. He certainly never met Jesus. If he had, he'd have left the judgment to god.

[Cartoonist]

62. Remember Joe the Plumber?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-joe-the-plumber-became-joe-bible-believing-christian

Wurzelbacher explained how his pastor, who seems to believe that faith and science are incompatible, noted that while science textbooks have several new editions, the Bible has never been revised.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

I went here to find the quote from Corinthians that I included in my OP. Note, there a over twenty different versions of the bible and that's just the ones in English. No one is being fooled by calling them mere translations. Each translator has their own agenda, else they wouldn't bother to translate English into English.

Regarding Corinthians, you'll notice that there are many different terms for homosexuals. My favorite is those who make women of themselves. The original Greek word was malakos(correct spelling). The original meaning of the word has not withstood the passage of time, probably because it was slang. My guess is that it was a derogatory term, kind of like poofter is used in Britain and Australia. I wouldn't put it past Paul to stoop to using the term, seeing as how he thinks they belong in the same company as fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers.

You can tell the agenda of each translator by how they choose to interpret the word malakos. It sure makes it convenient to condemn a whole group of people by pointing to the bible. In this case, they aren't only cherry picking a quote, they are cherry picking which version of the bible to quote.

[catrose]

102. What an ignorant pastor eom

[okasha]

121. LOL

I'll let you figure out why.

[goldent]

60. Reminds me of the supreme court

Here you have 9 expert lawyers who hear a case, and come up with usually two, and sometimes three different opinions on how the constitution addresses the case. And the constitution is only a few pages long, and didn't go through all of the transcription and translation processes the Bible did. Man is good at selective interpretation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. But in the case of legal issues, we have case law trumping statute law since 1803 in the U.S.

Case law can overturn statute law since Marbury v. Madison, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1803. This is why the laws must change with the times.

With the Bible, you can justify anything with some verse because it's all contradictory. It's a giant mess stuck together by orders of Emperor Constantine to keep his empire together. He took out reincarnation and women's equality and ended up with a whole lot of contradictions, sometimes on one page next to another.

Terribly lousy moral guide that is not adequate for our modern age. Most people don't believe demons cause mental illness anymore, for example. Or that the earth is flat and pi is three and that the moon shines by its own light. The people who wrote it had no curiosity and no interest in science or exploration. They were only interested in obedience to a psychotic, capricious god who is not worth worshiping because he's psychotic and irrational.

When you have people who must be obedient and have had their will destroyed, then their excuse is what the Nazis said at the Nuremberg Trials: "I was only following orders." That does not fly in a court of law. Obedience rather than doing right was the highest value in their society. Read Alice Miller (The Drama of the Gifted Child) and books by John Bradshaw, Ph.D., about what produced the Nazi civilization through beatings and irrational upbringing of children. It's called the "poisonous pedagogy". Adults must be obeyed and adults are right at all costs, merely because they are bigger and can beat children and kill them and it's excused.

[goldent]

66. The legal framework doesn't matter much IMO

In the end, the court justices often write multiple opinions giving diametrically opposite answers to the same question, using the same inputs (constitution, case law, whatever). They can always can come up with the legal justification to support their opinion, even though their inputs are more organized and consistent (to a point) than the Bible. This happens around the world - it is something we as a civilization do.

[merrily]

76. Good question. We allow convicted murderers to marry, even if

they are in prison for life or have been sentenced to death; and, unlike homosexuality, murder made the Big Ten.

[catbyte]

84. An Anne Lamott quote says it all:

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people that you do."

[cbayer]

92. That is priceless!

[orpupilofnature57]

103. " Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free " Jesus

He isn't a politician trying to sell himself, They are.

[cbayer]

115. Congrats to you cartoonist!

You did actually post some effective flame bait, even though I doubted you from the beginning.

[Brettongarcia]

141. This post is not mere "flame bait"; this is an important issue regarding those who quote "God"

Contradictions in the Bible remain a problem.

And they remain an objection to those who quote the Bible as if it was entirely authoritative. Even as they ignore cherry-picked passages that contradict their quotes.

This is a major problem; one that needs to be periodically revisited. To remind newcomers of a core difficulty with the faith.

It's amazing the number of half-believers that pretend to support God. And who try to borrow his authority for their own ideas. By selectively quoting him. Even as they ignore 9/10 of the sayings credited to him, that might contradict their cherry-picked quote.

[truebrit71]

145. It either is, or isn't the word of god...

Believers can't rely on just parts of it for their truth, and ignore the bits that flat out contradict that "truth".

It either is, or isn't, "the truth". And therein lies the problem. What it is, is fiction. A guidebook if you will, but that doesn't suit those that wish to cherry-pick the verses that support their own positions, be they anti-choice, or anti-gay, whilst ignoring the ones that aren't convenient for them to adhere to. Plus there's the whole 'which version is the REAL, real word of god' bit? Add into that the fact that all of it was written down years, even decades after it all supposedly happened, and you can start to see the real problem emerge. As John Cleese once said, how can we be sure, for instance, that the bible got the sermon on the mount right, word for word, when it was written down thirty years later? The simple answer is, you can't. But if you can't point to something tangible, like a book, with 10 written rules that everyone MUST follow, it makes it harder to threaten people with eternal damnation as a punishment for NOT doing as they're told.

[cbayer]

150. Do you believe that it either is or isn't the word of god?

And, if so, do you think that is the final word on it, or is it ok if others see it differently?

Why can't believers rely on just parts of it? Who gave you the authority to decide that?

You are the second person to take the definitive position that it is fiction. The burden of proof is on you, but since you have absolutely nothing to back it up, it becomes rather fleeting and unsubstantial. Just an opinion held by you.

[truebrit71]

163. I think it's fairly clear my thoughts on that subject..

Logic dictates that if some of it is true, but others aren't, then it isn't the word of god. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You either are, or you aren't.

And again, your old enemy logic dictates that it is fiction, simply by virtue of the torturous route by which the modern bible came into being...

[cbayer]

168. That's not logical at all unless you are making the rules for what

is and isn't the word of god.

You are not presuming to do that are you?

It's nothing like pregnancy. Nothing at all.

Logic dictates nothing of the kind. Logic dictates that it is a collection of books that have written by men, re-written by men, translated at various times and presents some areas of contradiction and many areas with clear cultural interpretation.

Only a literalist would say that it is entirely true or it is entirely fiction.

You are not a literalist, are you?

[truebrit71]

176. ...and that has then been put forward as 'the word of god'...

...something that is laughable on it's face....

The bible is presented as the word of god, the absolute truth...and yet, as you CLEARLY state it was written by men, which makes it NOT the word of god, but the word of the word of the word of what someone decided to write down many generations ago about a set of stories of some bloke in the middle east.

Using your "logic" that this book that contains some of the truth, and some of the word of god, isn't it interesting that the hatred and biases of the speaker is almost always reflected in the passages they say are the ACTUAL truth...

[cbayer]

177. Your view is so very limited.

If you only listen to those on the right, then you will hear the passages that endorse their hatred and biases.

But if you open your ears and listen to others, you will hear the passages that endorse social justice, equality, love and peace.

Check this out. I don't think you will like it, but you are exactly the kind of person who should take a look at it.
http://notalllikethat.org

It is possible that it could have been written by men who were transcribing words from god. I personally don't believe that to be the case, but I have no evidence to say it is not true. It is you that is taking the hardline literalist position that it is either all true or all untrue.

[truebrit71]

182. So ignore the murderous bigots in Uganda for example...

...and focus on a soup-kitchen in Cleveland, or Detroit...?

[cbayer]

183. Who ever said that? Why not pay attention to both?

[Prophet 451]

216. Most American conservatives aren't really Christian

Yes, I'm aware that's a No True Scotsman but most of them are really following a new faith that, like Mormonism, grew out of Christianity but is distinct from it. I call it "Republianity". Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax zealotry, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence.

Also, it should be noted that it's virtually impossible not to cherry-pick the Bible. The book is so long and contains so many vague and contradictory passages that, in teh end, one has to simply pick which version one wants to believe in. Fred Phelps and MLK might have read the same Bible but they got very different things from it.

[okasha]

221. That's an excellent and concise assessment.

Thank you.

[Cartoonist]

229. I don't care what you call it

Fred Phelps calls himself a Christian. So do the people who listen to him. Fred Phelps believes that the bible is the literate word of God. He doesn't point to Corinthians or Leviticus and say, well, that's just someone's opinion. He points to those passages and calls Gay people abominations, while being completely deaf to Jesus' admonition to love one another. That's cherry-picking. I wouldn't care except people like him are pushing laws that deny gays their rights based upon his interpretation of God's laws. And fuck Fred Phelps, there are actually people sitting in the halls of Congress that do the same cherry picking. Not one of them will agree with you if you tell them that the bible is not the word of God and that the writing of laws should not be lifted from it.

MLK may have read the same book, but I don't recall him being a complete asshole or denying anyone their rights. If you want to cherry pick the bible and choose only the beautiful passages, I'm cool with that, but don't cherry pick the rotten fruit and call it divine inspiration.

[Prophet 451]

232. Fred Phelps was probably an asshole to begin with

Maybe that's all religion does: reveals who you really are.

[Cartoonist]

234. Agree, It's like a Rorsharch test. nt

[cbayer]

240. Well this is an entirely different tune.

You are ok with cherry picking the good parts, which is the position pretty much every believer in this thread has taken.

Your criticism is with the religious right who use the bible to justify their hate and bigotry and claim that it is sacred.

Frankly, I think everyone here agrees with that, but that is not how you presented this at all.