New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[The Minsky Moment]

I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

What do you mean by "general content"?
A significant portion of the content consists of poems, songs, sayings, proverbs, and so forth.  It's not the sort of thing that can be proven or unproven.
As for the historical narratives contained in Kings and Chronicles, the situation stands almost opposite to your proposition.  The specific content in these chapters - what individual monarchs and prophets supposedly did - is by and large unproven or even just wrong, but much of the key general content - the Assyrian conquest and the Babylonian siege, is accurate enough.

[Tamas]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

[crazy canuck]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

You deserve the full on Grumbler treatment.

[garbon]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

[Barrister]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

And what's your point?

At the time of the, say, Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church then, and continues to this day, to hold to a more allegorical understanding of the Bible.

[Tamas]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme.

[The Brain]

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK!

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you!

[garbon]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme.

Could you try to be a little more original then?

[Eddie Teach]

Viking does it much better anyway.

[crazy canuck]

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK!

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you!

[Barrister]

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK!

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you!

Au contraire my animal-loving friend.  Some of the most creative legal thinkers wind up on the bench!

[Razgovory]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme.

Bigotry and hatred of others is sort theme for the whole of Eastern Europe.

[Razgovory]

Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism. 

[crazy canuck]

Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years.  While he would have a good argument that all literalists who believe the world is 6000 years old are idiots he ends up looking silly by assuming that all religious people have the same belief.   Tamas has essentially fallen into the same trap.

[Berkut]

Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years. 

He does?

I assume that he states this somewhere, right, since you are stating definitively what he believes?