If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

[Razgovory]

Tamas is saying that if you are so credulous and stupid to believe in God, why aren't you believing anything anyone tells you.  Which is why I ask him the equally stupid question of why he isn't a Marxist.  It's based on dumb assumptions.

[Tamas]

I tell you, that how can you say that "world made in 6 days" is perfectly fine, but Jesus in America is impossible.

And CdM's "a lot of dudes said it shouldn't be taken literally" is the lamest excuse. How can you call BS on parts of the Bible, but not it's overall message, namely that there is a God, and there are a set of rules he wants you to follow?

[Razgovory]

Seriously Tamas, why do you believe the silly libertarian shit you believe?  Why aren't you a communist?

[Valmy]

So looks like most here missed the point.

Your respect for what religions inspire and all that aside.

If you believe in God, how can you ignore shit like water-walking, water-to-wine trickery, God talking to peeps and such, and yet think that the Book of Mormon is lies?

If you think the tacky parts of the Bible are fake, then how can you claim that the rest is not? Cherrypicking from holy books might be convinient but then you are just creating your own religion and undermining the truth factor of the thing you want to believe in.

It is all symbolic and not one word of it is literally true, like a historical record.  Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.  Well ok maybe not entirely coincidental but not really the point.  I would think having the same story told four times with practically zero similarities shared by all four stories would be a clue.

[merithyn]

I tell you, that how can you say that "world made in 6 days" is perfectly fine, but Jesus in America is impossible.

And CdM's "a lot of dudes said it shouldn't be taken literally" is the lamest excuse. How can you call BS on parts of the Bible, but not it's overall message, namely that there is a God, and there are a set of rules he wants you to follow?

You're missing his point entirely; deliberately, I'd guess. Seedy is saying that after two thousand years of scholarly and ethical interpretation, the Bible has more or less been shown to be a guide book as provided by God, not an absolute history meant to be taken literally. Your assertions that people believe it is meant to be taken literally doesn't change the fact that very few people believe that anymore.

And even if they did, as Garbon has said, that doesn't mean that a person has to take all religious treatises as truth. It comes down to what you feel is most true for you, or what fits best with your beliefs, or even what religion does what you find to be most important (caring for the poor, doesn't drink alcohol, etc.). It's similar to one person finding a woman beautiful and another thinking she's hideous. Neither is right or wrong. It comes down to their personal view on her looks.

[Valmy]

I tell you, that how can you say that "world made in 6 days" is perfectly fine, but Jesus in America is impossible.

And CdM's "a lot of dudes said it shouldn't be taken literally" is the lamest excuse. How can you call BS on parts of the Bible, but not it's overall message, namely that there is a God, and there are a set of rules he wants you to follow?

This is a very strange accusation.  Considering the Bible symbolic and only looking at it as a metaphysical thing is sort of central to my entire spiritual philosophy.   So that feels a little circular. 

And I do not think that is the overall message.  If that was the message the whole thing would be a pamphlet.   

[garbon]

I would think having the same story told four times with practically zero similarities shared by all four stories would be a clue.

heh.

[Tamas]

You're missing his point entirely; deliberately, I'd guess. Seedy is saying that after two thousand years of scholarly and ethical interpretation, the Bible has more or less been shown to be a guide book as provided by God, not an absolute history meant to be taken literally.

YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right? Sure, the smarter Christian folks realized that it must be a load of BS, but liked the general message and couldn't want to ruin their own livelihood anyways, so they come up with convinient explanations of why a bunch of backward tribals wrote backward tribal superstitions, and why the life of Jesus was "enchanced" by various stuff stolen from other religious myths in what probably was the biggest marketing battle of history.

The answer of course is that every generation twisted the meaning to it's own liking. Today we like to see the basic morals of Jesus' teachings as foundations for the liberal democracies we have, and I sure would love to subscribe to that, but then such an attempt must face the fact that these secular liberal societies fought their way into existence against the harsh and unyielding opposition of the previous eras' Christianity.

Which necessary leads us to the conclusion that the Bible is either totally inadequate for drawing conclusion on the nature and existence of God (since the actual interpretation changes according to who reads it, which means that it has no value on its own), or that it was indeed meant to be taken literally in which case the outlandish claims it make makes it no better literature than the Book of Mormon.

[Tamas]

Considering the Bible symbolic and only looking at it as a metaphysical thing is sort of central to my entire spiritual philosophy.   So that feels a little circular. 

I would indeed like to know which part of the religion's holy (ie. official) text told you to view the Bible as that.

I know that is the CONVINIENT way for you, since otherwise your religion is not compatible with the modern views on moral and individual rights and such, but conviniency (?) doesn't make something true.

[Syt]

Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.

[Tamas]

Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.

I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.

Not sure I made the right choice

[Valmy]

I would indeed like to know which part of the religion's holy (ie. official) text told you to view the Bible as that.

The fact that it is literally impossible to take it literally, without just ignoring huge chunks of it.  And in any case the basic tenants of my religion hold this to be true.  If I were to believe otherwise I would not be a member of Unity.

I know that is the CONVINIENT way for you, since otherwise your religion is not compatible with the modern views on moral and individual rights and such, but conviniency (?) doesn't make something true.

As I said it is literally impossible, the Bible does not give a crap about consistency at all because it was not written to care about literal truth.  It has nothing to do with modern views on moral or individual rights and such.  Even ancient people reading this text recognized this.  So I am curious why you hold this to be a matter of convenience when it seems blatantly obvious.

[Sheilbh]

I'm still noy getting your point and will come back later.

But I think you're wrong on the Bible. The Bible is the Torah, with all of that heritage plus certain canonical texts from the time of Christ. It was assembled by various Church councils. Which is why some books are in a Catholic Bible but not a Protestant one. Even literalists tend to be aware of and interested in that history of how 'the Bible' was constructed. It's closer to the Hindu holy texts or the hadiths than a text of revelation like, say, the Quran or, from my understanding, the Book of Mormon.

[Valmy]

I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.

Not sure I made the right choice

Well I guess to answer your question about who do I think is nuttier Mormons or fundy Christians I would have to say...well I think they are all pretty ridiculous.  The Mormons seem to take the crazy and intentionally turn it up to level 10 and then take great pride in that fact.  But that seems to be what makes their religion popular...to the extent it is popular anyway.

[Razgovory]

Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.

I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.

Not sure I made the right choice

No, probably not.