Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

if any part of the bible is wrong, which it is, it means it wasn't created by god

obviously, all religion was created by man distorted off of it's main interpretation of the truth and sacrificed for elements of control

don't pretend that the bible has any authority on anything, especially in any way shape or form using it as means to sublimate the real meaning of god. god without man, without religion, without anything. just god and the universe, one and the same. an apple is an apple is an apple is you.

---

At 5/20/08 06:28 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: if any part of the bible is wrong, which it is, it means it wasn't created by god

Guess I need to start you up too.
What does "Word of God" mean to you?

obviously, all religion was created by man distorted off of it's main interpretation of the truth and sacrificed for elements of control

obviously, just like how Dawkins and Hitchens are making good bank off you guys..... ;)

oh no he didn't !!!

---

I believe in nothing and everything the word of god is the word of man and the revelation that is the truth will be known to no one.

---

At 5/20/08 06:25 PM, Imperator wrote:

Ok, let's move forward then. What does the "Word of God" contain?
Ie, define the "Anything" part of "anything that is found".

Well that depends from religion to religion.
If you claim that GOd created the universe, then anything you claim he made or wrote or said should reflect that he knows EXACTLY how the universe works.
If you claim GOd isn't a liar, then anything you say is his word shouldn't have lies in it.
IF you claim he's perfect, then anything you said is his word should have contradictions.

"God's word" is usually applied to books of course, but some people claim to have divine revelations and to speak with the authority of God. Obviously no such person ever displayed any kind of knowledge that would come from God when tested for it, hence showing they are either deluded or lying.

And when I say "anything" I mean ANYTHING. All the history, the morals, the words, the events, the places, the science, the predictions etc. in the bible, if you claim it to be from GOd, have to check out against what you claim God is.
Christians/Catholics usually claim he's perfect, all-loving, all-fair, all-powerful and all these great things that you certainly don't find in the bible :o

---

At 5/20/08 06:37 PM, Imperator wrote:
obviously, just like how Dawkins and Hitchens are making good bank off you guys..... ;)

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who was writting books 30 years before he "made it big" and same goes for Hitchens.

As a side note, I find it HILARIOUS that in a lot of debates where they invite some eminent atheist who's either a scienist or an author, you always get this attack like "oh he just wants to sell books to you!" or "yeah obviously he'll defend science, it's his job!".
What a ridiculous argument.

---

At 5/20/08 07:00 PM, poxpower wrote:
Well that depends from religion to religion.

Stop right there, because anything that is said after this context is completely and utterly pointless. That said, the archaic and traditional dramatized interpretations of worship and fantastical fable land have nothing to do with the real actual questions at hand. The why. The where. The when. What is time. So much more important than the obvious notion that old things are easily found to be short sighted and fostering fragile ilk, of course, they are the past. Look to the future, you must ask new questions, but the notion of the unknown will forever remain. Until it is not so.

---

At 5/20/08 07:00 PM, poxpower wrote:
Well that depends from religion to religion.

A perfect middle road "I don't commit to shit" answer....
I'm asking YOU. You seem to have a clear understanding, you've quoted the book, so what does the "Word of God" contain?

And when I say "anything" I mean ANYTHING. All the history, the morals, the words, the events, the places, the science, the predictions etc. in the bible, if you claim it to be from GOd, have to check out against what you claim God is.

A better answer, but I want confirmation this is what your opinion is.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who was writting books 30 years before he "made it big" and same goes for Hitchens.

Amazing how that road doesn't seem to go both ways..... ;)

---

Scientists are priests of reality.

---

At 5/20/08 06:51 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I believe in nothing and everything the word of god is the word of man and the revelation that is the truth will be known to no one.

Infinite reduction? "There is no spoon"?

I guess that begs the question:
Is there such thing as an objective Truth in your eyes, even if it will be known by no one?

---

At 5/20/08 04:08 PM, Imperator wrote: How so? You don't fall under the Catholic faith, therefore you aren't under the scruitiny of Catholic dogma.

And even so, its not the church leaders making devine judgements, it is God that does that, he is merciful and loves us all, no matter what we believe in.

So yeah, Hindu people go to heaven.

---

At 5/20/08 07:46 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And even so, its not the church leaders making devine judgements, it is God that does that, he is merciful and loves us all, no matter what we believe in.

So yeah, Hindu people go to heaven.

But if people say atheists don't go to heaven because they don't believe in Jesus/God, then what makes Hindus an exception?

---

At 5/20/08 07:50 PM, hippl5 wrote: But if people say atheists don't go to heaven because they don't believe in Jesus/God, then what makes Hindus an exception?

I dont think being an atheist means not going to heaven...but it doesnt realy help either.

---

At 5/20/08 07:54 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I dont think being an atheist means not going to heaven...but it doesnt realy help either.

So would "good" Satanists go to heaven too?

---

Heaven is a human concept, thought up entirely on the basis of fantasy.

---

At 5/20/08 07:19 PM, Imperator wrote:

I'm asking YOU. You seem to have a clear understanding, you've quoted the book, so what does the "Word of God" contain?

First off, there is no such thing as the actual word of God, as I said, since he doesn't exist.
Second, if you claim the bible is the word of God, then it contains what the bible contains: lies, contradictions, factual inaccuracies, not technology, no science, bad morals, allegories, stories, jargon etc.

I'm not the one claming the bible is the word of God, religious people are. I'm claiming the bible ISN'T the word of God, as one easily concludes when reading it because of the absence of all that I have mentioned before.

All I can tell you is the things you'd expect to find in something that is actually the word of God.

Let's take it from another viewpoint: I could claim that the bible was written by an ancient alien civilization. But what do I have to back this up?
If that was true, you'd expect to find, in the bible, mentions of other planets, technologies that relate to space travel, mentions of other races or other ecosystems, etc. You wouldn't expect the bible to be just the story of ordinary people living 2000 or 4000 years ago.

So similarly, if the all-knowing creator of the universe wrote a book, you'd expect the damn thing to stand out, but it doesn't. Holy books and texts and places are a dime-a-dozen.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who was writting books 30 years before he "made it big" and same goes for Hitchens.

Amazing how that road doesn't seem to go both ways..... ;)

?
There's tons of religious people making truckloads of cash with books and sermons and political lobbys.
To use that as an argument for the existence/non existence of God or for the validity or ID or evolution is missing the point.

---

At 5/20/08 08:20 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/20/08 07:19 PM, Imperator wrote:

I'm asking YOU. You seem to have a clear understanding, you've quoted the book, so what does the "Word of God" contain?

First off, there is no such thing as the actual word of God, as I said, since he doesn't exist.

Define exist. You mean isn't real.

Second, if you claim the bible is the word of God, then it contains what the bible contains: lies, contradictions, factual inaccuracies, not technology, no science, bad morals, allegories, stories, jargon etc.

Of course the bible is farce. =|

I'm not the one claming the bible is the word of God, religious people are. I'm claiming the bible ISN'T the word of God, as one easily concludes when reading it because of the absence of all that I have mentioned before.

Again obvious.

All I can tell you is the things you'd expect to find in something that is actually the word of God.

Then what does that make you in tune with, if you have the peak of it, if you find the pinnacle of sense, what does that make your thoughts? How do you approach where these thoughts come from exactly. Chemical reactions? Yeah, but that's the how, not why.

Let's take it from another viewpoint: I could claim that the bible was written by an ancient alien civilization. But what do I have to back this up?

It could be.

If that was true, you'd expect to find, in the bible, mentions of other planets, technologies that relate to space travel, mentions of other races or other ecosystems, etc. You wouldn't expect the bible to be just the story of ordinary people living 2000 or 4000 years ago.

Not really, as it was written for us, they wouldn't include anything that would make us think anything other than what they wanted us to think.

So similarly, if the all-knowing creator of the universe wrote a book, you'd expect the damn thing to stand out, but it doesn't. Holy books and texts and places are a dime-a-dozen.

On the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to find it, and it wouldn't be cut and dry, it could be many different messages combined from everything all over the world into a single thought of perfection, you know, maybe something a little bit above what you guys keep bickering about...

To use that as an argument for the existence/non existence of God or for the validity or ID or evolution is missing the point.

You missed his point. He's saying that everything is a theory or an idea originally, and you can re-examine question the validity of any of them.

---

At 5/20/08 04:37 PM, Imperator wrote: I mean it's like me saying "I'm a Red Wings fan!". Then you ask "what do you think about the Avalanches"?
I say "well I DON'T think about the Avalanches, I'm a Red Wings fan".

You should say: "Didn't we sweep you with a single player scoring more goals in the series than your entire team?" Or: "Oh, them... they suck."

At 5/20/08 04:55 PM, poxpower wrote: But if he tells you to gouge out your eyes then it's like "but we don't do that anymore so surely he wasn't serious!".

Yes and no. Again, you're ignoring the context. IF (big if) Jesus said "when you ogle a wo/man you must gouge out your eyes." And it was the common punishment for such an act at the time, it can be inferred that he was only talking to them in that culture. A broade context might lend it to mean "If you break the law, submit to the punishment you earn from the culture you follow."

i.e. if you know an action's result is the death penalty, be ready to die if you do it.

Why would he mix the two so that only science that comes 4000 years later can separate what is fact and what is fiction?

So we would strive to find out? To test our wits? To see if we could figure out the puzzle? To lay another clue in our path? Maybe we're simply getting ready for another level of understanding of his word. Maybe our culture has finally (or will soon) come to the point of the inclusion and study of the gospels not included.

That's the sign of a very horrible writer or a pathological liar.

Or an infinitely intelligent writer. Have you ever read a book where you didn't get all the connections and the symbolism and the metaphors on the first reading?

So ok let me get this...
God creates man, but not smart enough so that he can talk straight to him.

Yup... if we were omniscient (necessary to follow god's actual conversation/meaning/thought process) we would be god already... and we all know how that ends.

Then God punishes stupid man for not doing what he asks him ( because he's stupid ).

True... but we don't really know what that punishment might be.

Then God finds one stupid man, orders him around a little, kills some unborn children, then writes down 10 commandments for him on a tablet.

So they say...

One of which is "don't lie".
..

Yup.

Yes well that makes sense.

We're all just stupid monkeys... of course it doesn't make sense. But your position, thoughts, and interactions with others does all probably fit into the planned effect of the words he wrote.

From middle Africa.

Yup... suck on that, Iraq!

So I guess he wanted the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Well that's nice.

Can a greater good come from an incredible evil?

One of your has to be wrong.

You're just trolling me aren't you?

No... I'm actually asking why two different interpretations can't both be right.

If you and I look at an abstract painting and come away with two different impressions. different emotions, and different reactions... is one of us wrong?

---

Let's take it from another viewpoint: I could claim that the bible was written by an ancient alien civilization. But what do I have to back this up?

If that was true, you'd expect to find, in the bible, mentions of other planets, technologies that relate to space travel, mentions of other races or other ecosystems, etc. You wouldn't expect the bible to be just the story of ordinary people living 2000 or 4000 years ago.

No, I wouldn't, because that's assuming the text was a travel guide. If it's just some guy's memoirs it might just look like anyone else's memoirs.

Even if it's a book written by an ancient alien civilization, knowing what GENRE, what TYPE of book it was would be damn helpful in understanding what the book contains.

Even "Religious Text" acts as a nice drop-down category with fairly standard contents.

Therein lies my point.

"Bible" and "Word of God" has a very specific connotation to you, and I want to drag that out.
We've already got historical accuracy.
So what else, in your opinion, does the "Bible" or the "Word of God" contain, or is supposed to contain?

---

The bible is a hallow totem designed to blind men with faith, the age of reason disguised as a devil, the tools of logic described as fake. Both battle each other, instead of going forward, past it all. Towards the real thoughts.

---

Or an infinitely intelligent writer. Have you ever read a book where you didn't get all the connections and the symbolism and the metaphors on the first reading?

Lol. You mean like Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? The thing I mentioned about things being taken literally was probably not the author's intention?

But Irish babies are yummy......don't get me wrong.....

Wanna know what the irony is? You can read Homer's Odyssey or Iliad 1500 times and still miss things. Homerists can find things in those epics your brain doesn't even comprehend, let alone catch at the first pass.

It's got about 900 years on the Bible, has been the focal point of Western Education since antiquity, and there is STILL scholarship being produced on it.

Can a greater good come from an incredible evil?

International Humanitarian laws resulted from the Holocaust.
And nuclear power resulted from the nuclear bomb.

Warfare and the haste at which science progesses tends to go hand in hand for reasons that should be obvious (Necessity breeds innovation).

But what's amazing is that some of the most ancient, most profound, and most seemingly beneficial innoventions (yay for combining words?) originated from military use.

Roads were designed for nothing more than to transport troops quickly. If you wanna know the invention that has probably numerically killed the most people ever, and CONTINUES to provide that capacity, it's roads. Led Rome to wipe out entire civilizations, cities, and ethnicities. Imperium et libertas all the way!

If you and I look at an abstract painting and come away with two different impressions. different emotions, and different reactions... is one of us wrong?

I really need to divide between atheists in Heathenry, and the rest of the rabble, because there's a clear difference in cognitive capacity.....

The fact that Pox keeps missing the point is almost BAFFLING, it's as if he never heard the term "perspective"......

Truth be told, I've always thought atheism (the strict, hardline stuff) was a "cop out" for doing some intellectual exercise. Way easier to simply say "No God", "No purpose to life" or whatever statement you wanna insert and be done with the entire realm of discourse you can have on the subject. The reverse is also true of course.

But I always need to remember to make the distinction between atheists who have genuinely looked and resultantly don't believe and those that simply don't believe out of laziness or on the words of others (read; the Bandwagon). Atheism based on Dawkins is a cop-out.

Truth:
I have faith partly because I think it's good to have. It allows, and to some extent, demands an intellectual curiosity that supercedes the rigidity of other knowledge systems.

That's mainly the reason I'm still Catholic today; they're actually pretty damn good about getting you to think about things and not just take it willy nilly. It is literally about FINDING God.

So yes, I have faith in God. This is my "scientific" theory, my presumption of the unknown, and a point of exploration. I don't profess to know what's at the end of the journey.

My hypothesis is God exists.
I have to have the faith that my hypothesis is correct, otherwise why would I come up with it and desire to test it?

So now I read, and chat, and learn. I go about my experimentation.

Side note:
I didn't realize my talks about sunsets and Chopin had a wiki page......

---

At 5/20/08 09:19 PM, Imperator wrote: I didn't realize my talks about sunsets and Chopin had a wiki page......

Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

Yeah, 'beauty = Catholicism' is a non-sequitur.

---

Beauty is an example of truth.

---

At 5/20/08 09:26 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 5/20/08 09:19 PM, Imperator wrote: I didn't realize my talks about sunsets and Chopin had a wiki page......

Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

Yeah, 'beauty = Catholicism' is a non-sequitur.

Whew! Good thing I wasn't claiming beauty=catholicism then!!

Simply pointing out that I didn't realize "Argument from Beauty" was an actual title.

Now I could go off on some tangent about how I find it odd for a linguistics major to have missed that, but that'd be pointless and rude.....

---

At 5/20/08 08:33 PM, Ravariel wrote: Yes and no. Again, you're ignoring the context.

My point was not that people were getting their hands chopped for masturbating or whatever, but that THAT level of punishment for pretty stupid offenses was common.
To us it seems really extreme, but to them it might have sounded a little closer to home, but I still doubt any of them did it.

So we would strive to find out? To test our wits? To see if we could figure out the puzzle?

What puzzle? He just plain lied.
Don't you think it's a weird argument to say "well all the stuff in the bible that sounds like a lie is actually put there to test us."??
Then how do you know the entire thing isn't just a lie to test us? Who told you? Him? Why would you trust him that that point?

Yup... if we were omniscient (necessary to follow god's actual conversation/meaning/thought process) we would be god already... and we all know how that ends.

Well I can easily write the bible a lot clearer than he did while conveying the same message.
So either he thought I was dumber than I am, or I'm smarter than he is.
Or the bible wasn't written by God.

True... but we don't really know what that punishment might be.

He threw us out of Eden for starters and made us feel pain, hunger suffering etc.
What a shithead.

We're all just stupid monkeys...

Speak for yourself but you won't convince me that the bible is "brilliant" because it's full of holes, likes, contradictions and because no one can understand what it REALLY means.
I can write like that too, look: The banana dinosaur on the mountain said to the man: Don't llama the duck, my dear friend!.
Are you convinced? Maybe you're just too stupid to understand the real meaning of that sentence. Or MAYBE, just MAYBE that sentence means nothing.

Can a greater good come from an incredible evil?

A better question: does a greater good necessitate a great evil?
I submit : no.

If you and I look at an abstract painting and come away with two different impressions. different emotions, and different reactions... is one of us wrong?

We're not talking about impressions here, people claim to know what God said in a factual manner. The Jews say: Jesus isn't the son of God. Christians say: he is.
Two mutually exclusive things. They're not saying " Jesus inspires courage in me" and the others "Jesus inspires love" they're fighting over factual things, like: where he lived, what miracles he did, what he said, what it meant etc.
Things for which there can only be one right answer.

At 5/20/08 08:40 PM, Imperator wrote:

Even if it's a book written by an ancient alien civilization, knowing what GENRE, what TYPE of book it was would be damn helpful in understanding what the book contains.

I see your point, but nevertheless you could never claim that it was written by a space traveler unless it contained actual knowledge of things that a space traveler and only a space traveler would know.
I could pretend like Edgar Allen Poe was an alien who chose to pretend he was a human poet.
But then I have nothing to back myself up.
So that's why I don't claim it.

So what else, in your opinion, does the "Bible" or the "Word of God" contain, or is supposed to contain?

I don't even know how much clearer I can get. I don't even know what kind of answer you want still that I haven't given.
The word of God could contain ANYTHING. It could be a recipe for beer or a manual for a Dildo. It could be written on my cock or in the stars or whatever the fuck.

But if you CLAIM that something was written by God, then you better have something to back it up. If your "proof" is that "he chose to write a book that would look like it was written by man" then that's completely ridiculous.
In fact I'm a space alien from the future, but I disintegrated my time travel ship, I erased my memory and changed my DNA to look JUST LIKE A HUMAN.

It's a crazy claim that NO ONE would believe, and rightly so.

---

That's why God = everything, pox.

It's just a matter of whether or not you want to call it that.

I don't care what your dictionary says, that's the only concept that makes sense to me. If something like that exists, it's obviously everywhere.

i.e. dark matter

---

i have read a lot of your post about the hypocrisies, the utter illogical roots, the oppressive beleif structure... and most of what you guys are talking about is absolutely relevant.

but religion is not about the bible, the Vatican, or even that there is a god looking over your shoulder constantly. its about the people standing next to you.

can it be possible that a group of people can participate socially without believing such a zealous interpretation? could a liberal minded person find solace in being with a group of like minded passionate, overall good people?

If your here to vent your frustrations at the dilapidated houses of worship thats ok. religion is the first reining political organization so there are plenty of dark closets full of skeletons to examine. before nationalism of the eighteenth century the major religions had great power dictating economy science and law so the structure of oppression is embedded in their dogma.

religion also gives something to people that is void in their lives. the empty hunger for social interactions with people that are passionate about being worthy of love. they want to break down the walls they have from all the stress and interact with no fear of alienation.

the idea that im pressing is whatever done to make yourself happy, deserves your passion. the world you live in does not demand you believe in god or religion so there is absolutely no pressure to join that wagon. but i would hope that in your journey for happiness, you find your validation. a place you can unlock and show off... freedom to be you.

---

*waits for his promised awesome reply*

---

Sorry for the wait.

At 5/20/08 03:47 AM, Drakim wrote: The wiki link I gave earler mentions it.

I'm not gonna bother checking the valitidy of all the surveys, I'm just gonna bang my head on the wall and move out of the country.

The problem goes the other way. Christians still count the bad Christians when they throw "look at home many we are" argument (for example when arguing that the US is a Christian nation). But if that is the case, then the actions of those bad Christians must count into Christianity as a whole.

True, but the actions of the few don't define Christianity as a whole.

But, anyway, In these posts I'm being the devils advocate. My issue is more about the teachings of Christianity rather than it's actions. Any teachings can spawn bad actions if under some special conditions. One shouldn't blame a religion for being "unlucky".

Righto. I'm always playing devil's advocate, trying to see how much clout I can actually pull around here. (Am I really a Christian, or an agnostic? ;) )

And 100% agree. Religion isn't alone in being malleable though. In fact, I've found that there is probably a smaller pile of things that are set in terms of behaviors than there are that can spawn bad actions. Hell, science is equally as manipulable. The Rwandan Genocide showed that.

Heh, sorry, but, the assumption comes from it being pretty much pressed into my head. I've debated this self defense thingy so many hundreds of times on so many forums, and ALL Christians defend the "Jesus wasn't talking about being a pacifist at all!". It's like you asking me to not assume that most people think the moon is real.

If you've noticed, I started this debate not because I disagreed ideologically but methodologically. Somehow it switched a little bit to an ideological one, but I think it's back again to methodology (Pox's arguments of what a Bible "should" contain or not contain).

Unfortunately assumptions are part of how our brain operates (and in general it serves us well), but I have serious problems with statements pulled from a subjective source.

Point being if you're unsure about a statement's authenticity IMO just don't say it.

Sadly, I don't have any statestic, but honestly, I don't feel I need it. If there are Christian pasifists, then they are going though a lot of trouble to avoid me.

You're also in a country that's what? 80% agnostic/atheist? While you might have had a bad cup of water, that doesn't mean the whole river is polluted.

That might be true, but also in the past. Devout Christians today mass to the republican party who are for giving everbody and their mother a machinegun and sniper rifle for self defense.

Won't argue there.

the wut was because you didn't actually reply to my argument. I never used a generalization against Christians in the argument. I belive you are mixing me and pox too much again D:

Seems the thread to do it.

One might ask what fules that persecution :o

Generally our own cognitive need to fill the gaps with whatever information we have available, and a general disinterest in pursuing the subject.

"Christians are bad" is a nice general statement that you can gather a bit of evidence for, then move on. Actually exploring the issues takes time, patience, and curiosity that people just don't seem to have.

Stereotypes and generalizations are often fueled by snippits of information that match the stereotype, and people not pursuing the issue any further than that.

Asians are good at math. I have an asian friend who's good at math, ergo the "theory" holds. I now move on to playing outside or whatever.

I'm not really arguing against you as a person, but your group, so to speak. I can't help it if your group sucks. D:

And vice-versa. That was the point. And my actual "group" doesn't care actually. If there's a single definition or word I would associate with my religious beliefs, it'd be "Apathetic".

I dunno, maybe there was at one point a good bible and an evil bible, but they merged? D:

Meh. The point was academic. Methodology again.

Well, he could argue that one command to hate overrules one command to love. a book with 51 commands to love and 49 commands to hate is still a pretty hateful book.

He could have gone in any direction. My point was simply that he didn't, he stuck with the bad form.

I think, if you have a book that is a source of morals, it needs to be semi-perfect. Heck, I could have written a better morality book than the Bible. It doesn't help if 95% of the book is love if the other 5% is hate. If that is the case, it's a flawed book, even if it has good sides.

THAT'S the type of answer I'm looking for. Now explain to Pox so he can stop sitting there like "the Bible's not perfect, but I can't define in what aspect I'm expecting perfection!!!"

Also, 100% agree. The "count" of moral to immoral actions is an important aspect in defining a holy book as "The" word.

Christians should be more like you then. Because many are waaaay to happy to claim that not only is the Bible a source of morals, it's THE source of morals.

Again, there's that lack of interest in finding out or being critical. I haven't gone to Church in like 15 years, don't pray, don't even discuss religion with my friends or family, but owe my skepticism (which is probably better defined as simply not being certain) and intellectual curiosity to a Catholic education.

I think MicktheChampion said something like "Catholic schools do a good job of making you atheist" or something, to which I agree wholeheartedly.

Mormons don't belive in one God. That's a pretty big jump. They belive God is just the one we have today here, but other places there are other Gods. They even belive we can become such a God by following mormon teaching.

That's a simplified version of what's actually being taught over there. It's a little more complicated than that from my understanding. And in the end those complications actually do a good job of fitting with Christianity as a whole.

The finer differences end up being so miniscule that they have no value.

Sigh, sure. But it's hardly news.
You beat Turkey. yay.

Fuck.

Ah, sorry, mix of words.

Non-native English speakers are allowed, English sucks balls as a language. Born and raised English speakers get the wrath of my Grammar Nazi self though.

Well, that's stupid. Ignore stupid people.

I put a morality into dance, mainly by dancing for the benefit of others. My friends and I do a lot of charity shows, but the dance itself is largely one of individuality and ego. Whether I'm actually "putting" morality into the dance or not I guess is up to question though.

Ah, I was just arguing that you have an argument, even if it's a bad and biased one.

While true, I think the more common sense ones can be thrown out. If I make an argument about astro-physics you can be damn skippy I'm talking out my ass, even if I get "lucky" and the end result of the theory holds true.

Everything else would more than likely be wrong though, which makes it not even a theory, but a lucky guess. Reduplication would be impossible.

I guess the real point to my entire presence in this thread is that I think Teleology sucks, and is a terrible way both to go through life and to argue a point.

Don't get me wrong, I agreed with you on 95% of the things when you were talking to pox. I just wanted to talk about the other 5%. It doesn't mean I'm "taking pox side".

Likewise. I probably agree with 95% of your ideology, but there's 5% I don't. And chances are it's methodological.

Meh, agnostic and weak atheist are pretty close in definitions. It's all pretty simple. God may exist, but so may goblins. I'll remain atheistic against each of them until proven otherwise.

I can't be atheist because I do see a purpose in thinking from a religious perspective. However, thinking from as many perspectives as possible is my true aim, so what Pox said originally about being "barely deist" was probably closer to the truth than anything else.

---

I don't even know how much clearer I can get. I don't even know what kind of answer you want still that I haven't given.

The word of God could contain ANYTHING. It could be a recipe for beer or a manual for a Dildo. It could be written on my cock or in the stars or whatever the fuck.

In other words, you are claiming that the Bible cannot be the word of God because it contains flaws and is historically inaccurate.

Fine, but that means you must have a definition for what a religious book is supposed to contain, and what "the word of God" would entail. You can't tell me that it can't fit the category because of XYZ and then not have a list of ABCs that would make it fit.

In a history book I look for historical accuracy.
In a novel: A plot and character development.
In a biography: A timeline of events from that person's perspective.

If I think Gladiator sucked because it was historically inaccurate as all fuckoff, I'm making the claim that for a movie to be good it must therefore contain historical accuracy. Right?

My point is that you can simply argue that the movie wasn't designed with historical accuracy in mind, making my evaluation rather moot to judge the movie on. Historical accuracy isn't a good category to judge the movie on.

Apply it to holy books, and subsequently the Bible, and subsequently the word of God.

This is the whole point Pox. It's ALL about perspective, and it's a concept you have a LOT of trouble with. Judging cultures on our current moral guidelines. Judging a holy book on your (lack of) elements that the genre is supposed to contain.

My problem with you has almost never been ideological, it's been that you have NO good arguments, and say and think shit without ANY proper perspective.

---

At 5/21/08 04:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

Fine, but that means you must have a definition for what a religious book is supposed to contain, and what "the word of God" would entail. You can't tell me that it can't fit the category because of XYZ and then not have a list of ABCs that would make it fit.

A book that is the word of God would contain definite and extraordinary evidence that it was written by God.
I can sort of finally understand your question, but it's a bad question. There's no set thing that a "word of God" book should contain. Like, nothing says it HAS to have morals in it. Or that it HAS to have historical facts.
It doesn't have to have anything but ONE thing: really strong evidence that God wrote it.