The Bible (a discussion)

I am a keen student of the bible and have been for many years, however there is a source for contention over how the book fits in to our day.

There are many differing views over the bibles origin or credibility, and how much it should be used within religion, however whether inspired of God or not, it is undoubtable that no other writings have influenced the world we live in more, and so surely it is worthy of some consideration.

I invite you to discuss your take on scripture. What merit does the book hold to you in your faith?

I invite you to discuss your take on scripture. What merit does the book hold to you in your faith?

OK, Frank. I think you delude yourself. Not just you, but many.

You often claim I am afraid of consequences that may or may not be meted out by God as retribution for some unspecified sin. You rightly judge the perceived punishment as unspeakably cruel and can't imagine how any rational being could love such a God. And since millions have been so managed by the priesthood through the ages, it presents a perfectly good reason for you to discard the Bible as a provider of hope and/or guidance. I can't blame you; but have you ever asked yourself why the Bible writers insist that God's principle quality is love? How could that possibly fit with your world view?

Its a conundrum because the feared punishment is a myth. The early Jews did not believe in an afterlife. There could be no baking, boiling, frying or broiling. Nothing really to fear, at least nothing that any self respecting atheist or agnostic would fear. You live. You die. That's it. The lie of an afterlife, with dual eventualities of heaven/hell, is nothing but a management tool. Priests and kings have worked this implement for thousands of years. So you and I are in the same boat when it comes to this state of affairs.

Except you seem to apply some credence to the myth. And I submit your view of what you refer to as "the god" is a head in the sand reaction to a threat that does not even exist. Having judged "the god" according to your own standards, you focus entirely on passages which, left unexplained, bolster your position. The only payoff I can see from this line of reasoning is the freedom you have to choose for yourself what is good and what is bad, an ages old concept, don't you agree?

Perhaps you could benefit from a reexamination of your axioms and assumptions.

Where have I done what you are talking about here...that caused this latest outburst of yours?

Pick out something I said that caused this "you are so easily confused" remark...and let's discuss that.

Although i find the proposition that no other writings have influenced the world we live in more to be an absurd nnd unwarranted claim

Quote:

Where have I done what you are talking about here...that caused this latest outburst of yours?

Pick out something I said that caused this "you are so easily confused" remark...and let's discuss that.

1--Your use of "outburst" in the first sentence. Your use of "latest" to declare that neo's post is just another in a long line of outbursts.

2--Your use of "silliness" in your previous post.

If a member makes a well written and perfectly sensible post, as neo did, it is not an outburst. It is a contribution to the thread and those who have read the satires of Dante or Joyce on the subject of Hell will recognise the validity of the point made.

All neo said, in essence, is that you mark your own exam papers. Which is fair enough but you need to answer the question of whether we are all allowed to proceed in that fashion or is it a unique privilege of yours? And if you concede we are all equally entitled to proceed that way what is the outcome for our way of life?

To declare someone's contribution to be "silliness" or "nonsense" is neither an argument nor a contribution to a discussion unless you're holding the biggest or the fastest gun.

Some people might argue that to take federal funds to help NJ to recover from the storm is silly and nonsensical and they might very well be able to provide excellent justifications for the assertions. There was no aid for communities suffering natural disasters in the pure light of reason in the days before Biblical influence. Such zones were simply looted and left to shift for themselves. The shores of NJ are risky places to invest in and thus land is cheap. Federal aid coming from those who paid more for land in order to avoid such risks is not unlike compensating those who back losers at the track. It is a thoroughly Christian invention to supply it.

All the funds used in the recovery of NJ are at risk from a storm next year. The whole of the effort on behalf of NJ was inspired by Christian thinking which would not exist without the Bible.

. . . .What is Neo...a virtual ventriloquist?. . .

. . .Where have I done what you are talking about here...that caused this latest outburst of yours? . . .

. . . Pick out something I said that caused this "you are so easily confused" remark...and let's discuss that. . . .

Frank Apisa, replying to Spendi wrote:

. . . .What is Neo...a virtual ventriloquist?. . .

What would a virtual ventriloquist look like? Is that a redundancy? Beats me.

Frank Apisa, replying to neo wrote:

. . .Where have I done what you are talking about here...that caused this latest outburst of yours? . . .

I never considered myself an outburstist, either. Whatever that is. Beats me. Is outburstifier a better word?

Frank Apisa, replying to neo again in the same post wrote:

. . . Pick out something I said that caused this "you are so easily confused" remark...and let's discuss that. . . .

Gosh, now I'm confused. You don't remember how many times you insisted I must be motivated by fear of "the god"? Beats me; I lost count.

Bogala Boogala Boo!.................Boo!

. . .Hey...I ain't responding until you assure me that Spendius gave you permission to speak for yourself.

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . .Hey...I ain't responding until you assure me that Spendius gave you permission to speak for yourself.

Aww. Heck. Well, we can go to another thread and duke it out there if it suits you.

You are definitely a fine sparring partner, Frank.

Hey einstein, first of all, I didn't respond because I turned my computer off, as I had other things to do. Does that make any sense to you, or are you really that ridiculous?

If believing that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified makes me a Christian, then, yes, I'm a Christian. But I'm a Christian that absolutely has no problem with returning your, or anyone else's, pathetic insults. I tend not to join these types of conversations because of this kind of stupid crap, it's child like. Your mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's opened. Try opening yours up sometime.

I'll give you a full run down in Herodotus soon if you're really interested, but not if you're gonna just respond with stupid insults.

I'm not trying to jump this thread, just giving a different perspective. Some of my best friends don't believe. I would still give them the shirt off my back. I don't resort to childlike name calling with them, or them I, like some of you. It says a lot about you. You and bill are really not worth even communicating with, it's silly.

As for ghosts, in my opinion, if you believe in them, or possibly even seen one, then you'd be somewhat ignorant not to give way to the fact that there's some seriously mysterious things going on beyond flesh and blood. I don't really care about the ghost topic, but it's just to get you, or anyone else interested, to understand that if ghosts exist, why can't you see that supernatural beings do exist. It's a real simple concept, easy logic. For someone like you, it's baby steps.

Let me know if you want to hear the facts OUTSIDE the bible. If not, go ahead and insult others who try and explain. Good luck with that, seriously, you're gonna need it at this point.
Later

In any case...since you apparently are a genius...or have a crystal ball...why the "you are so easily confused?"

Burlesque is a literary, dramatic or musical work intended to cause laughter by caricaturing the manner or spirit of serious works, or by ludicrous treatment of their subjects. The word derives from the Italian burlesco, which, in turn, is derived from the Italian burla – a joke, ridicule or mockery.

Quote:

In any case...since you apparently are a genius...or have a crystal ball...why the "you are so easily confused?"

I'm not a genius and I do not have a crystal ball.

If I were to allow neo, an ab. of neologist, the benefit of the doubt I might say that he was using a short-hand for saying that the corny and cliched burlesques you employ are contradictory and they have rendered you confused.

You would not be confused, of course, if you had no contact with the real world or no experience of the burlesques of others and thus cannot have taken the trouble to compare the two with reference to their likeliest outcomes.

Here is Wiki's, that's an ab. of Wikipedia, definition of burlesque.

Quote:

Burlesque is a literary, dramatic or musical work intended to cause laughter by caricaturing the manner or spirit of serious works, or by ludicrous treatment of their subjects. The word derives from the Italian burlesco, which, in turn, is derived from the Italian burla – a joke, ridicule or mockery.

Laughing something off, the bustle for example, is just as good as hunting down all references to it and burning them and stringing up those who make them. It is actually better at getting rid of it.

The western world has proved that the Bible is a serious work although there are some who are not entirely convinced. It was the first ever book printed on the first ever printing press. It has since sold more than any other book printed since, the bulk of which are worthless, and it has been used as the source of quotations and plots more times than any other work of art.

Children's names. It's a serious work.

Laughing that off is not going to be easy and if you were not so confused you would be campaigning to use the other method to get rid of it instead of regaling us with these washed-out, simple, burlesques of yours which only serve the purpose of making you look ridiculous. As they do Setanta.

Somebody is certainly confused if they continually bang their head against a thick wall. In the real world no amount of cheapskate burlesques will shift the Bible or prevent it being treated as a serious work.

There are too many people who have restrained their sexual urges for too many years to have them accept that they did so for nothing. Or, worse, for a sack of bullshit. For something ludicrous. Fools. Had the wool pulled over and missed all the fun.

That those who have allowed their sexual urges a freer run might take a different view is not at all surprising. But why they feel they cannot allow their sexual urges a free run and keep quiet about it, as many politicians have self-evidently managed to do, (i.e. all the ones not in disgrace I mean---well, the men--I wouldn't wish to seem ungallant), rather than flagging it up in public, with pride, is a complete mystery to me unless they believe, and it would be a belief, that everybody having the same fun will cause no harmful effects. Some, not a few, believe there will be benefits and make us more ready and fit to fight our enemies. And in view of the fact that they would have to introduce draconian measures fairly soon after trying the experiment, property taking on the look of a transit camp in fairly short order, as just one example, I dare say they might well take advantage of the regimentation required to get us lean and fit as we would soon be with 6am PT, jogging to our workstations, a Vegan meat and potato pie and a card to watch the Big Mon explain how grateful we ought to be to him for bringing us this paradise.

That's a twee burlesque. The serious work being ridiculed is the regime which does without the Bible.

There are two types of burlesque. One that ridicules something that should be ridiculed, totalitarianism, and one that ridicules something that doesn't deserve to be. Ridiculing the latter something in order to introduce the former something entails a duty to defend the former something. ( I think Mr Heller would have preferred "latter" instead of my last "former" but I prefer to express myself in a way that doesn't require the reader to make any undue effort.)

So basically you are a Christian attacking Christianity out of felt guilt at your past, I assume, infringements of the Christian sexual morality unless you mount a defence of totalitarianism.

Which, of course, I can easily do using evolution theory.

The early Jews did not believe in an afterlife.

neologist wrote:

The early Jews did not believe in an afterlife.

Perhaps, but the early Christians certainly did what with their references to Hades and Tartarus in the New Testament books, and all of their definitions and cultural implications that the word entails, your dogmatic, rationalizational gymnastics notwithstanding.