Does God approve of bestiality? - Contradictions - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
David from Texas	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 09/07/05 07:29:21	*Quote:* Re: Does God approve of bestiality? cyborg Of course, this still begs the question: WHY DIDN'T THE OMNISCIENT GOD NOT JUST REALISE THAT ADAM WOULD NEED EVE STRAIGHT AWAY WITHOUT ANY OF THIS EXTRA NONSENSE INBETWEEN? Extra nonsense inbetween? Are you that intolerant to not allow the writer of Genesis to divulge a glimpse into what it was like for Adam to be alone? The purpose of the "extra nonsense inbetween" was to demonstrate the condition of Adam, the pinnacle of God's creation, before the creation of Eve. In other words, the parenthetical describing of the naming of animals by Adam was a way of saying "it was lonely at the top". Give a little leeway will ya? The book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, it is not a play by play historical documentary... it is the Word of God written to mankind. Why do skeptics often seem to act like babies who cry over the most ridiculous? Why do skeptics demand the most ridiculous? Would you demand that your heart surgeon be disqualified from operating on you because he does not wear scrubs that are the latest in fashion?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
cyborg	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1918 09/07/05 08:23:59	*Quote:* Are you that intolerant to not allow the writer of Genesis to divulge a glimpse into what it was like for Adam to be alone? I'm not intolerant of his story at all. It just doesn't make sense in the context of an all-knowing, all-powerful god. That's not his fault though - he never thought he'd have to content with people coming along and redefining his god umpteen times. *Quote:* The purpose of the "extra nonsense inbetween" was to demonstrate the condition of Adam, the pinnacle of God's creation, before the creation of Eve. In other words, the parenthetical describing of the naming of animals by Adam was a way of saying "it was lonely at the top". Again, in the context of an all-knowing god this is rather irrelevant. If this is all just metaphor who gives a crap about trying to make the stories compatable! They're both just metaphors for different aspects of fundamental truths about nature and man your god wanted to share with us and they're not really about creation at all. If so it's rather moot as to what the actual chronology is and there's no need for you to massage it. *Quote:* Give a little leeway will ya? The book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, Ah, you're a supporter of evolution now then! No? No leeway for you then! *Quote:* it is not a play by play historical documentary... *Quote:* Certainly not. *Quote:* it is the Word of God wri Certainly not. *Quote:* Why do skeptics often seem to act like babies who cry over the most ridiculous? Why do skeptics demand the most ridiculous? I don't cry or demand the ridiculous. You present it, I point out that it's ridiculous, I go home, you hope your god will smite me. *Quote:* Would you demand that your heart surgeon be disqualified from operating on you because he does not wear scrubs that are the latest in fashion? That's what you're advocating David, not us: "Would you demand that he be disqualified from preaching Christianity to you because he does not have a Bible that is the latest in translation?"
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 09/07/05 09:32:00	*Quote:* Re: Does God approve of bestiality? cyborg Quote: Are you that intolerant to not allow the writer of Genesis to divulge a glimpse into what it was like for Adam to be alone? I'm not intolerant of his story at all. It just doesn't make sense in the context of an all-knowing, all-powerful god. Ah, but it makes sense in the context of communicating truth to creatures who are NOT all-knowing and all-powerful. The Word of God is written to mankind, not written to Himself! *Quote:* That's not his fault though - he never thought he'd have to content with people coming along and redefining his god umpteen times. LOL! You now pretend to tell us what God was thinking? And you now claim that He never thought about the consequences of what was written? I thought you said that He is all-powerful and all-knowing! Which is it? *Quote:* Quote: The purpose of the "extra nonsense inbetween" was to demonstrate the condition of Adam, the pinnacle of God's creation, before the creation of Eve. In other words, the parenthetical describing of the naming of animals by Adam was a way of saying "it was lonely at the top". Again, in the context of an all-knowing god this is rather irrelevant. If this is all just metaphor who gives a crap about trying to make the stories compatable! Who said that it was a metaphor?!? The parenthetical description of Adam naming the animals was a way of saying "it was lonely at the top". Remember, the Bible is written to mankind. The audience is mankind, not God Himself. There is no need to "make the stories compatible" because the narratives make perfect sense already to the intended audience. It appears that only the skeptics say that they cannot understand it. *Quote:* They're both just metaphors for different aspects of fundamental truths about nature and man your god wanted to share with us and they're not really about creation at all. If so it's rather moot as to what the actual chronology is and there's no need for you to massage it. Disagree with the above. The chronology is easily understood from the context. The skeptics try to make the text say something that it does not, especially in regard to chronology. The text IS about creation, and the details are not metaphors. *Quote:* Quote: Give a little leeway will ya? The book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, Ah, you're a supporter of evolution now then! No? No leeway for you then! The skeptics argue against the book of Genesis by constructing a straw man which treats the book as though it was a scientific document. Nothing could be further from the truth. The details in Genesis are compatible with scientific evidence, but the book itself is NOT a scientific treatise! *Quote:* Quote: it is not a play by play historical documentary... Quote: Certainly not. Would you kindly inform drseinfeld of this? He criticizes the book on the false basis that it claims to be a play by play documentary. *Quote:* Quote: Why do skeptics often seem to act like babies who cry over the most ridiculous? Why do skeptics demand the most ridiculous? I don't cry or demand the ridiculous. You present it, I point out that it's ridiculous, I go home, you hope your god will smite me. Your demand that THE OMNISCIENT GOD JUST REALISE THAT ADAM WOULD NEED EVE STRAIGHT AWAY WITHOUT ANY OF THIS EXTRA NONSENSE INBETWEEN reflects a lack of tolerance of the biblical literary style and an willful ignorance of what the verses are actually saying. *Quote:* Quote: Would you demand that your heart surgeon be disqualified from operating on you because he does not wear scrubs that are the latest in fashion? That's what you're advocating David, not us: "Would you demand that he be disqualified from preaching Christianity to you because he does not have a Bible that is the latest in translation?" ?!? I do not understand your point.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
cyborg	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1918 09/08/05 01:38:32	*Quote:* Ah, but it makes sense in the context of communicating truth to creatures who are NOT all-knowing and all-powerful. The Word of God is written to mankind, not written to Himself! So... your god was telling man something about themselves in the guise of a creation story (or two) just to show them what it's like if you're a singular man on his own without a mate but just lots of animals. Erm... right. Important lessons to be learned there! I can't wait to see how much more ridiculous you can make a simple creation myth (or two). *Quote:* LOL! You now pretend to tell us what God was thinking? Erm no. Since I DON'T BELIEVE IN SUCH AN ENTITY I can't entertain any ideas about what a non-existant thing thinks. I was of course refering to the REAL author of Genesis - MAN. *Quote:* And you now claim that He never thought about the consequences of what was written? I thought you said that He is all-powerful and all-knowing! Well frankly it really doesn't look that way which is why your apologetics trying to explain away why your god had to obfuscate everything in the context of a grand plan which really didn't need obfuscating given the dire consequences for being unable to deobfuscate it seem poor at best. Either that or, as I'm sure you'd agree, your god purposely wanted pretty much everyone not to understand what the hell he was on about so that he could whittle down the elect. After all, real estate in heaven is at a premium. *Quote:* Who said that it was a metaphor?!? *Quote:* The parenthetical description of Adam naming the animals was a way of saying "it was lonely at the top". That's what we call a metaphor David. *Quote:* Remember, the Bible is written to mankind. The audience is mankind, not God Himself. Yeah, so again, is this just a nice story or not? Or did your god have to create the universe in a certain way, obfuscate the story to mankind, just to prove a point about his first man being lonely "at the top"? *Quote:* There is no need to "make the stories compatible" because the narratives make perfect sense already to the intended audience. I certainly agree with that. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that the intended audience would have understood it as you did David. *Quote:* It appears that only the skeptics say that they cannot understand it. I understand it better than you: these stories were written by man, for man, as an attempt to understand the universe they found themselves in. They make far more sense when you don't assume a divine being with ultimate knowledge was clueing them in. That they didn't know everything is forgiveable. Of course when I'm talking to YOU about it I have to approach it from the angle where not knowing everything is unforgiveable - since that's what you're claiming. You see a skeptic RESPONDS to claims. I can't be skeptical without someone to present bullshit to me. If it were a different Christian with different ideas arguing this with me I wouldn't respond in the same way. Either you're too stupid or too stubborn or it would just destroy your worldview to get this point but: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD HERE. You seem to have a remarkable inability to understand other viewpoints. *Quote:* Disagree with the above. The chronology is easily understood from the context. It certainly is. Unfortunately for you it shows two of them. *Quote:* The skeptics try to make the text say something that it does not, especially in regard to chronology. The text IS about creation, and the details are not metaphors. No, YOU'RE making it something it's not. The text IS about creation. I'm entirely sure, since I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD, that there are no extra little messages like, "Adam was lonely" thrown in there for Christians to weasle out thousands of years later. It reads as plain as day to me - two mythical creation accounts with no basis in reality because the people who wrote them had no special knowledge about creation. Makes them no different from thousands of other cultures who had creation stories. *Quote:* The skeptics argue against the book of Genesis by constructing a straw man which treats the book as though it was a scientific document. No. *Quote:* Nothing could be further from the truth. The details in Genesis are compatible with scientific evidence, but the book itself is NOT a scientific treatise! THIS is where we attack it - no skeptic thinks Genesis is a scientific document - it's plainly fucking obvious it isn't. BUT when believers claim it is compatable with scientific evidence or that science proves Genesis (and in extension the whole Bible, because after all, if part is true the whole must be automatically (so sayeth logic master DfT)) THIS is where it will be attacked. Because inevitably the only way it can be made compatable is with some generous helpings of scientific misknowledge and creative interpretation. *Quote:* Would you kindly inform drseinfeld of this? He criticizes the book on the false basis that it claims to be a play by play documentary. No, he criticizes it based on Christians claiming it's a play by play documentary. Do you see any of us arguing why Zeus jumping out of Chronus' head is a ludicrous unscientific creation story? No? Well that's because no one left on Earth claims that story is what actually happened any more. Unlike Genesis where people do. Again David, skeptics do not exist in a void - we need something to be skeptical of. If no one believed the Bible was the word of your god none of us would spend our time showing the Bible cannot be so. We'd move onto dowsing or something because people still believe that crap works. *Quote:* Your demand that THE OMNISCIENT GOD JUST REALISE THAT ADAM WOULD NEED EVE STRAIGHT AWAY WITHOUT ANY OF THIS EXTRA NONSENSE INBETWEEN reflects a lack of tolerance of the biblical literary style and an willful ignorance of what the verses are actually saying. No, it reflects an intolerance of what DfT's forcing the book to mean in his world. In my world these are just quaint creation stories made by a (two) primitive societie(s) with no underlying connection to an actual omniscient being. In your world with the deities that infest it the story as you present it, in the context of your world, still doesn't make sense. *Quote:* I do not understand your point. No, you wouldn't David. It's so funny you so often accuse us of making ourselves "our own little gods," when you have such a dictatorial attitude to what Christianity is. When you know, and you know alone, what the Bible means doesn't that make you into your god?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 09/08/05 07:12:04	*Quote:* Re: Does God approve of bestiality? cyborg Quote: Ah, but it makes sense in the context of communicating truth to creatures who are NOT all-knowing and all-powerful. The Word of God is written to mankind, not written to Himself! So... your god was telling man something about themselves in the guise of a creation story (or two) just to show them what it's like if you're a singular man on his own without a mate but just lots of animals. Erm... right. Important lessons to be learned there! I can't wait to see how much more ridiculous you can make a simple creation myth (or two). The creation story was not a guise. As mentioned before, the description of the naming of the animals showed that Adam was the pinnacle of God's creation, yet he was also alone at the top. It is all very simple, which is why it was written that way. The simplest of men can understand this, but apparently you cannot. *Quote:* Quote: LOL! You now pretend to tell us what God was thinking? Erm no. Since I DON'T BELIEVE IN SUCH AN ENTITY I can't entertain any ideas about what a non-existant thing thinks. I was of course refering to the REAL author of Genesis - MAN. I agree with you that the REAL author of Genesis was a man who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The book was God inspired. *Quote:* Quote: And you now claim that He never thought about the consequences of what was written? I thought you said that He is all-powerful and all-knowing! Well frankly it really doesn't look that way which is why your apologetics trying to explain away why your god had to obfuscate everything in the context of a grand plan which really didn't need obfuscating given the dire consequences for being unable to deobfuscate it seem poor at best. Either that or, as I'm sure you'd agree, your god purposely wanted pretty much everyone not to understand what the hell he was on about so that he could whittle down the elect. After all, real estate in heaven is at a premium. The elect are not "whittled down"... The number is fixed. *Quote:* Quote: Who said that it was a metaphor?!? Quote: The parenthetical description of Adam naming the animals was a way of saying "it was lonely at the top". That's what we call a metaphor David. Disagree. I call it a paraphrastic construction, not a metaphor. *Quote:* Quote: Remember, the Bible is written to mankind. The audience is mankind, not God Himself. Yeah, so again, is this just a nice story or not? Or did your god have to create the universe in a certain way, obfuscate the story to mankind, just to prove a point about his first man being lonely "at the top"? The story is not obfuscated. Even the simplest of men can understand what is being said in this passage. Perhaps, that may by one of your problems, your intellect gets into the way. Actually, you could not see it because you refused to see it. *Quote:* Quote: There is no need to "make the stories compatible" because the narratives make perfect sense already to the intended audience. I certainly agree with that. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that the intended audience would have understood it as you did David. If the simplest of men can understand it as well as the highly intelligent, then it has succeeded in its purpose. *Quote:* Quote: Disagree with the above. The chronology is easily understood from the context. It certainly is. Unfortunately for you it shows two of them. Oh, come on Cyborg... don't be ridiculous. Genesis 2:19 is not a de-novo chronology. It is simply restating what had occurred in Genesis chapter 1. This is similar to the way that Genesis 2:21-22 (the creation of Eve) provides supplemental information to what happened in Genesis 1:27 (male and female created he them). *Quote:* Quote: The skeptics try to make the text say something that it does not, especially in regard to chronology. The text IS about creation, and the details are not metaphors. No, YOU'RE making it something it's not. The text IS about creation. I'm entirely sure, since I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD, that there are no extra little messages like, "Adam was lonely" thrown in there for Christians to weasle out thousands of years later. It reads as plain as day to me - two mythical creation accounts with no basis in reality because the people who wrote them had no special knowledge about creation. Makes them no different from thousands of other cultures who had creation stories. This is what is amazing about the Bible. Two people, both presumably intelligent, can read the same thing and come to COMPLETELY opposite conclusions about what it is saying. What other works in the world can compare to the Bible in dividing people in such a way? It reads "as plain as day" to you as "two mythical creation accounts", whereas to me it reads "as plain as day" to me as THE one account of creation by God Himself. Simply amazing. *Quote:* BUT when believers claim it is compatable with scientific evidence or that science proves Genesis (and in extension the whole Bible, because after all, if part is true the whole must be automatically (so sayeth logic master DfT)) THIS is where it will be attacked. Because inevitably the only way it can be made compatable is with some generous helpings of scientific misknowledge and creative interpretation. I appreciate the above and agree that there is much "misknowledge" and creative interpretation used by creationists to try and "prove" the validity of the Bible. The arguments are very interesting on both sides... *Quote:* No, he criticizes it based on Christians claiming it's a play by play documentary. Then that is a straw man! I do not see the book of Genesis as being a play by play documentary. Christians do not see it that way either... If they do, then they need to be corrected. *Quote:* Do you see any of us arguing why Zeus jumping out of Chronus' head is a ludicrous unscientific creation story? No? Well that's because no one left on Earth claims that story is what actually happened any more. Unlike Genesis where people do. Again David, skeptics do not exist in a void - we need something to be skeptical of. If no one believed the Bible was the word of your god none of us would spend our time showing the Bible cannot be so. We'd move onto dowsing or something because people still believe that crap works. I agree with the above. *Quote:* Quote: Your demand that THE OMNISCIENT GOD JUST REALISE THAT ADAM WOULD NEED EVE STRAIGHT AWAY WITHOUT ANY OF THIS EXTRA NONSENSE INBETWEEN reflects a lack of tolerance of the biblical literary style and an willful ignorance of what the verses are actually saying. No, it reflects an intolerance of what DfT's forcing the book to mean in his world. In my world these are just quaint creation stories made by a (two) primitive societie(s) with no underlying connection to an actual omniscient being. In your world with the deities that infest it the story as you present it, in the context of your world, still doesn't make sense. I disagree. My goal in this discussion has been to demonstrate how the skeptics have been misrepresenting the text in their argument that Genesis 2:19 is a contradiction to God's commands against bestiality. The conclusion that God somehow advocates bestiality on the basis of this passage is plain false. *Quote:* Quote: I do not understand your point. No, you wouldn't David. It's so funny you so often accuse us of making ourselves "our own little gods," when you have such a dictatorial attitude to what Christianity is. When you know, and you know alone, what the Bible means doesn't that make you into your god? Good point. I appeal to you to correct me on the basis of what is in the Bible. I make mistakes just like anybody else.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2158 09/08/05 07:19:08	*Quote:* What other works in the world can compare to the Bible in dividing people in such a way? Quran, Torah and BoM Oh and many poems. Every other book on the planet is basically written very straight forward, while religious books never are. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
cyborg	Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1918 09/08/05 08:00:49	*Quote:* The simplest of men can understand this, but apparently you cannot. You are the only person who has ever proposed such an interpretation to me. *Quote:* I agree with you that the REAL author of Genesis was a man who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The book was God inspired. No. Just a man. No mumbo jumbo. No mystical moving spirit. Just a man confused by the world he is in and trying to make sense of it. No divinity required. No divinity shown. *Quote:* The elect are not "whittled down"... The number is fixed. Forgive me David, let me rephrase for your predeterministic sensibilities. The definition of the elect as revealed by man working with an alledged mystical spirit is such that the number of the elect is a low percentage of the total number of possible souls that could be elect. In effect your god has defined the universe to unfold in such a way as to ensure that the obfuscated rules in the Bible would ensure this. *Quote:* Disagree. I call it a paraphrastic construction, not a metaphor. If you're expressing one concept through the use of the imagery of another that's a metaphor. There's no sense in which you can paraphrase a longer story and get such a meaning unless the longer verson has: "From this we can see that it was lonely for Adam at the top of the animals." *Quote:* The story is not obfuscated. Even the simplest of men can understand what is being said in this passage. Yes again, it is VERY SIMPLE - it was written by simplistic people. However when you tell me that there's a great hidden meaning which requires the context of an all knowing deity then suddenly what is simply two creation myths with a slightly different bent becomes a confusing mix of chronology and later theological ideas jammed into a story not meant to express them. So, in your world your god chose to obfuscate his true meaning. In my world the story is what it is and is no more or less than that. *Quote:* Perhaps, that may by one of your problems, your intellect gets into the way. Actually, you could not see it because you refused to see it. I cannot see what is not there. Your god is not there. That is why I cannot see it. In your mind my interpretation that assumes just plain old men wrote it down cannot be acceptable to you - your version must make sense because if it didn't your god would vapourise. And yet I doubt it'd take you all of a second to dismiss the many thousands of other genesis myths that you'd see as ludicrous and I'd see as awfully similar to yours. *Quote:* If the simplest of men can understand it as well as the highly intelligent, then it has succeeded in its purpose. No, it suceeded in its purpose 4000 years ago. Being intelligent or stupid nowadays is irrelevant because the Bible was not written for us. *Quote:* Oh, come on Cyborg... don't be ridiculous. Genesis 2:19 is not a de-novo chronology. It is simply restating what had occurred in Genesis chapter 1. This is similar to the way that Genesis 2:21-22 (the creation of Eve) provides supplemental information to what happened in Genesis 1:27 (male and female created he them). You may see it like that. I do not. I don't have to. I don't have to make it into one consistent story by hook or by crook. I don't have to ignore the evidence that shows that these stories were written by two different sets of people. I don't have to ignore the fact that no matter how you slice it you have to mangle to chronology of the stories to make it fit so that it no long progresses in time order despite the fact there is no other reason other than a desire for harmonisation to read it like that. Other Christian scolars can accept that these stories were written by two different tribes and then become one when these tribes untied to form a new religion. Why is it so important to you that they must be one consistent story? *Quote:* This is what is amazing about the Bible. Two people, both presumably intelligent, can read the same thing and come to COMPLETELY opposite conclusions about what it is saying. What other works in the world can compare to the Bible in dividing people in such a way? As has been meantioned, pretty much any narrative. So whether it's Enterprise apologists insisting that their favourite Sci-Fi show wasn't phoned in and did infact have a great over-arching story or Christians telling me that every word in the Bible ultimately had the same divine motions ensuring a work of unparalleled consistency in his divine message I can't help but look at both groups with a hearty "WTF?" stare when I look at their stories and see massive plot holes. *Quote:* It reads "as plain as day" to you as "two mythical creation accounts", whereas to me it reads "as plain as day" to me as THE one account of creation by God Himself. Simply amazing. Not amazing at all. You have a vested interest in making it one creation story because you have to think that some great god was penning it - and clearly this god would be entirely incompetent if he gave two stories of how he constructed everything that didn't agree - therefore they must agree. Obviously you can't see that all your thinking on the Bible is tainted by the fact that any 'alledged' problem with the Bible is automatically, in your mind, not. That you find it hard to cope with the fact that I have no reason to give the Bible any such credance is your problem not mine. I'm not giving Enterprise fans any, I'm not giving you any either. *Quote:* Then that is a straw man! I don't think you know what a straw man is. The only question is whether or not he's attacking Christian's actual arguments as to why Genesis is a scientific creation account. Has he argued something that is not a Christian (and that doesn't necessarially mean Christian by your defintion) proposition? *Quote:* Christians do not see it that way either... If they do, then they need to be corrected. David, surely you can't be so naive as to think there aren't Christians that do? Hell, there aren't even that many Christians that think like you do - I don't know if you have noticed or not but most of them seem to have a big hard-on for free-will. *Quote:* I disagree. My goal in this discussion has been to demonstrate how the skeptics have been misrepresenting the text in their argument that Genesis 2:19 is a contradiction to God's commands against bestiality. The conclusion that God somehow advocates bestiality on the basis of this passage is plain false. I don't happen to think it does either - after all I don't think there is a god interjecting hiddening meanings all over the Bible to trip up believers. I just see it as a straightforward creation story. However, it should be noted that Christians will use similarly obscure verses to justify other beliefs. I have a Gideon Bible that was placed in the room I'm currently staying at and it has an interesting list of verses catergorised by potential need. I had a look at some of the ones for drug abuse and they were tenuous at best. The SAB does after all attempt to use Christian standards of interpreting the Bible to show how when applied to areas that those standards are not normally done such odd messages can be extracted. *Quote:* I appeal to you to correct me on the basis of what is in the Bible. I make mistakes just like anybody else. There wouldn't seem much point. You're not likely to approach the Bible from the perspective of a series of losely collected books written by individuals without the guiding hand of a spirit are you? Much of the different interpretation of the Bible comes firstly from some inherent ambiguities and secondly from the personal expectations of the person reading it.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tanstaafl	The amazing thing about the bible	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 555 09/08/05 18:47:52	*Quote:* This is what is amazing about the Bible. Two people, both presumably intelligent, can read the same thing and come to COMPLETELY opposite conclusions about what it is saying. What other works in the world can compare to the Bible in dividing people in such a way? That's a good thing? Or proves that biblegod must of been really confused sending the inspiration down that day? All religious works seem to have this as an attribute. Qur'an, TANAKH, BoM, the works of Scientology too, whatever they are called. Hardly unquie property to the bible. Then quite possibly secular works like Mein Kempf get a very different interpretation depending on your viewpoint. Whats truly amazing about the bible is that people still think of it as an accurate and inerrant work. Despite the translation errors and inconsistencies. (edit to add disclaimer: At no point in time are any references to gods or dragons meant to imply I believe in them as real things) ---- "Finding errors in religion is like finding sand on the beach." --
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Does God approve of bestiality?	09/06/05 15:58:21	drseinfeld
Unknown	12/31/04 14:00:00	Unregistered(d)
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/07/05 02:42:56	cyborg
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/07/05 07:29:21	David from Texas
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/07/05 08:23:59	cyborg
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/07/05 09:32:00	David from Texas
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/08/05 01:38:32	cyborg
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/08/05 07:12:04	David from Texas
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/08/05 07:19:08	raphjd
Re: Does God approve of bestiality?	09/08/05 08:00:49	cyborg
The amazing thing about the bible	09/08/05 18:47:52	Tanstaafl
does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 14:26:18	iam8
Re: does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 14:39:35	Argy Lacedom
does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 15:09:33	iam8
Re: does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 16:19:44	Argy Lacedom
does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 18:12:40	iam8
Re: does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 18:54:35	Keith and Company
Re: does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 18:59:43	iam8
Re: does God approve bestiality?	09/09/05 19:08:27	Keith and Company
Unknown	12/31/04 14:00:00	Unregistered(d)