The Religion Thread

[neoplacebo]

I've always been quite considerate when playing my sound system and have never failed to ask the neighbor if I am disturbing in any way; the reply has always been "no." On the other hand, on the rare occasions when I myself launch into a sermon, I always go full bore, both hands on the throttle, no holding back. Even so, I still have no complaints.

[Vrede too]

Essay: Fake news, faith and reason

Very interesting and not too long. I thought about quoting excerpts, but there's hardly a wasted paragraph.

One possible quibble -

... Brain-imaging studies show that doubt requires more mental effort than belief. Credulousness is the default setting for most people, most of the time. That is as true of crystal-gazing New Agers passing along posts about a conspiracy by Monsanto to control the world through genetically modified corn as it is of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, an elder of the Erath County Cowboy Church, who passed along an unfounded rumor that Clinton had been endorsed by the Communist Party. Miller, who is reported to be under consideration for nomination as secretary of agriculture, told reporters he doesn’t care whether it’s true or not....

Not that I'm a crystal-gazing New Ager, but I've never heard that one. I have heard that Monsanto wants to control much of the world's Ag through acquisitions and patents leading to near-monopoly vertical and horizontal domination, but there's hard empirical evidence for that.

[rstrong]

Not that I'm a crystal-gazing New Ager, but I've never heard that one. I have heard that Monsanto wants to control much of the world's Ag through acquisitions and patents leading to near-monopoly vertical and horizontal domination, but there's hard empirical evidence for that.

There's also the so-called "terminator gene", causing second generation seeds to be sterile. You use a low price to sell them to grain farmers. But now storing a portion of their harvest to plant the next year's crop doesn't work, and you've trapped them as customers. (Especially in the third world.)

[Vrede too]

Plus, successful lawsuits against organic farmers because patented pollen blew over from Monsanto customer fields, but that's not "control the world through genetically modified corn", just parts of it.

[Vrede too]

A grinchy pastor apparently wanted to ruin Christmas for children when he started shouting in a shopping mall

[rstrong]

Once the kids realize that their favorite mythology isn't real, they'll eventually realize that that pastor's favorite mythology isn't real either.

[Vrede too]

Ah, if only maturity really worked that way.

[Mr.B]

Perhaps I should have said "I don't understand the meaning of what I read the same way as YOU (rstrong) understands it."
You've confused me with an atheist; an atheist doesn't like what the Bible says... along with a few others who change the words.

"I have not confused you with an atheist, and I've never met an atheist that does not like the good parts of the bible."
"The good parts"...You mean the parts that don't mention the "Thou Shalt Not" parts...?

"Interpretation is a much better word, you've routinely taken passages and intentionally made them say something else, or explained them away in that they "don't count anymore, duh!".
I didn't say that; those are rstrong's words. I did say that Jewish Law in the OT regarding crops, clothes, beards, etc. don't apply to Christianity, as Christianity came about after the Crucifixion. I never "explained them away"; I quoted scripture as taken from the Bible.

"Obviously most Christians do the same thing as you, because we don't see most of them out there killing disobedient children and gays."
That statement makes no sense.

"More obviously there are some that actually do read it for what it says and do carry it out without excuse."
What is "it" that they read and "carry out"?

"The more you realize you're having to make excuses for what you read and believe in, the closer you'll get to the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I make no excuses for what I read, nor do I attempt to change what the scriptures say. I didn't write them, I believe in them.

As far as "the truth setting me free", (you sound like a Jehovah's Witness) free from what? Or maybe, "free" to do what? Free to foul-mouth in my everyday speech? Free to run around "with the guys" and stay out all night drinking and carousing? Free to steal, rob, rape, cheat on my wife .... or whatever?

"Besides, the "I interpreted what you wrote instead of reading it like everything else" excuse is probably not gonna fly your way into heaven anyway."
That statement makes no sense either.

"When I said kill the gays, I said kill the gays, are you thick Mr. B ?????" "DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH???"
Why are you shouting at me? Why are you wanting to kill "gays"? Yes I speak English.

"But that's why I say there is hope for you -- you don't follow the bible."
My hope is elsewhere; not here in this sinful hellhole. I'm satisfied with my life; sorry yours is so miserable; but... there is still hope for YOU.

[rstrong]

I didn't say that; those are rstrong's words. I did say that Jewish Law in the OT regarding crops, clothes, beards, etc. don't apply to Christianity, as Christianity came about after the Crucifixion. I never "explained them away"; I quoted scripture as taken from the Bible.

And yet when the Old Testament *does* align with your beliefs, you quote it to back your personal version of Christianity. Of course when the NEW Testament *doesn't* align with your personal version of Christianity, you casually dismiss it as nonsense.

For you the Bible and the religion are something to cherry-pick from to back your own personal beliefs, phobias and bigotries.

[Vrede too]

... I did say that Jewish Law in the OT regarding crops, clothes, beards (mostly Leviticus), etc. don't apply to Christianity, as Christianity came about after the Crucifixion....

And yet, you have said that Jewish Law re homosexuality does apply, something you have to do since Jesus was silent on the topic:
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... try#p43023

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

Once again Mr.B - who disavows the ENTIRE Old Testament and declares it not part of Christianity when it contradicts his personal beliefs - quotes the Old Testament when it does.

He's no Christian. He shows no understanding of Christianity. He's just a bigot who has latched on to a nearby book as a convenient source of quotes, cherry-picking the ones that support his phobias hatred and bigotry, and ignoring the rest.

This. :thumbsup:

You've gotten twisted up in your own hypocritical and dishonest cherry picking bigotry, again. What does your Bible say about liars and hypocrites in both the Old and New Testaments?

[Mr.B]

"And yet, you have said that Jewish Law re homosexuality does apply, something you have to do since Jesus was silent on the topic"

Homosexuality is also a NT prohibition, but you wouldn't understand 'cause it's been overly "cherry-picked".
Again, <sigh> just because Jesus didn't mention what God had already deemed to be an abomination, doesn't mean it's not still an abomination.
Some OT laws were legal, some were ceremonial, some, such as the mixture of fabrics, crops, beard shaving, etc. dealt with the prohibition on idolatry; but you know that

"What does your Bible say about liars and hypocrites in both the Old and New Testaments?"

I don't recall that your name has ever been mentioned.

[rstrong]

In Mr.B's defense he hasn't relied on Jewish law for that. He quotes a directive from Paul's Memo to the Corinthians from the New Testament.

Of course he casually dismisses another directive from Paul in the same memo, against women speaking in church. It's all in the cherry-picking.

And yes, it's strange that given Jesus's teachings on all aspects of life, he never said anything against homosexuality. Paul came later, converting to Christianity after Jesus was already dead.

[Vrede too]

He's done both. He just resorted to Paul when we repeatedly pointed out his OT hypocrisy, as I quoted, and he couldn't find that Jesus cared. That's how desperate his bigotry and perverted obsession with the sex lives of other consenting adults is.

Mr.B is a coward when busted, as usual.

[Mr.B]

"In Mr.B's defense he hasn't relied on Jewish law for that. He quotes a directive from Paul's Memo to the Corinthians from the New Testament."
Correct. Because we believe the Bible writings were inspired by God.

"Of course he casually dismisses another directive from Paul in the same memo, against women speaking in church. It's all in the cherry-picking."
I KNEW you would get around to that; that's the point where, because I concur, you've labeled me "misogynist". I don't dismiss it.

"And yes, it's strange that given Jesus's teachings on all aspects of life, he never said anything against homosexuality."
Because God had already said homosexuality is an abomination; therefore, in Jesus' day, it was STILL an abomination. The fact that He
"never said anything against homosexuality" doesn't mean it's acceptable in His sight.

"Paul came later, converting to Christianity after Jesus was already dead."
How convenient that you left out the part about "the chiefest of sinners" that murdered Christ's followers, and yet, was called to preach God's Word.

[Mr.B]

"He's done both. He just resorted to Paul when we repeatedly pointed out his OT hypocrisy, as I quoted, and he couldn't find that Jesus cared."
So in the eyes of atheists, Jesus doesn't care about sin...? How convenient.
That must be one of the "good parts" of the Bible that Banni spoke of.

"That's how desperate his bigotry and perverted obsession with the sex lives of other consenting adults is."
Nothing desperate or perverted on my part. The desperation and perversion are all you and your ilk so "desperately" claim your sin is not a sin because Jesus never said anything about it.

"Mr.B is a coward when busted©, as usual."
Coward...? I've not ran away. I'm right here defending my beliefs. If anyone is the coward, it's the one doing the name calling because he can't stand someone defending Biblical teachings against immorality. BTW, it's that same coward that even mentioned "sex lives of other consenting adults". Something weighing heavily on your mind?

[rstrong]

"In Mr.B's defense he hasn't relied on Jewish law for that. He quotes a directive from Paul's Memo to the Corinthians from the New Testament."
Correct. Because we believe the Bible writings were inspired by God.

So why do you consider *some* passages sacrosanct and casually dismiss others on the very next page? Do you have a magic decoder ring that tells you which writings are inspired, and on which days?

"Of course he casually dismisses another directive from Paul in the same memo, against women speaking in church. It's all in the cherry-picking."
I KNEW you would get around to that; that's the point where, because I concur, you've labeled me "misogynist". I don't dismiss it.

No, I call you a misogynist because of plenty of other things you've written.

It merely makes you even more hypocritical when you ignore Paul's directive against women speaking in church while declaring the bits in the same letter that match your personal phobias to be sacrosanct.

Because God had already said homosexuality is an abomination; therefore, in Jesus' day, it was STILL an abomination. The fact that He "never said anything against homosexuality" doesn't mean it's acceptable in His sight.

And what of trimming beards, mixing cloths, mixing crops, treatment of sex slaves (sorry; "handmaidens") selling your daughter as a handmaiden etc.? If he "never said anything against those", then how do you know that they've become acceptable? Is this another function of your magic decoder ring?

Heck, the rule against women speaking in church is one from the Old Testament that's still around in the New. Why is it supposed to be ignored?

"Paul came later, converting to Christianity after Jesus was already dead."
How convenient that you left out the part about "the chiefest of sinners" that murdered Christ's followers, and yet, was called to preach God's Word.

I was speaking from historical context. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality; that directive came later, after he was dead.

But sure, treat Paul's writings as divinely inspired. That still leaves us with the question of how you declare *some* of his writings divinely inspired and others nonsense.

[Mr.B]

Over and over and over and over....you're the highly educated one here; figure it out on your own. I'm tired of squabbling with you.

[rstrong]

Only because your hypocrisy is indefensible.

[Mr.B]

"Only because your hypocrisy is indefensible."

My "hypocrisy" is in fine shape, I'm happy with it. I'll put my "hypocrisy" up against your bigoted, God-hating, rhetoric any day.

[rstrong]

"Only because your hypocrisy is indefensible."

My "hypocrisy" is in fine shape,

That it is; that it is.

your bigoted, God-hating, rhetoric

Whether I'm pointing out your hypocritical cherry-picking from the Bible to justify your bigotry, or pointing out the great many other Christians who disagree with you, I'm the one who keeps defending the Bible and the religion.

That's probably what bothers you the most.