Religion

humblebum

(5,881 posts)

99. I think you are confusing it with 'The Atheist's Handbook,' which has all those

Reply to Goblinmonger (Reply #98)

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 10:00 PM

Mar 2012

other things you are referring to and so much more recent and timely.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HR 535 – Year of the Bible Resolution (billboard) [View all] pokerfan Mar 2012 OP

A lesson in Biblical literalism brought to you by Americanatheists.org. rug Mar 2012 #1

I bet you say that to all the direct Bible Quotes. ;) nt greyl Mar 2012 #2

Only to the cute ones. rug Mar 2012 #4

Feel free to interpret HR 535 literally. greyl Mar 2012 #6

Oh, that doesn't need interpretation, it's plain enough. rug Mar 2012 #7

lol greyl Mar 2012 #8

A thoughtful response. rug Mar 2012 #10

Are you saying the Republicans behind the bill aren't theists? greyl Mar 2012 #12

I'm saying it's Republicans doing this but the target is not Republicans, but theists. rug Mar 2012 #14

We both know those behind the bill identify more deeply with their religion greyl Mar 2012 #22

So - it's all the nonbelievers in the legislature who passed the bill? dmallind Mar 2012 #13

No, it's Republicans. rug Mar 2012 #15

acting out of secular motivations? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #26

Try political. rug Mar 2012 #32

keep going... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #33

Passed you, rug Mar 2012 #34

and off the cliff deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #36

I'll wait. rug Mar 2012 #37

better yet, hold your breath ;) deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #38

It's metaphorical slavery pokerfan Mar 2012 #3

I suppose you accept the literal truth of what follows as well. rug Mar 2012 #5

I will assume that you believe slavery is immoral pokerfan Mar 2012 #11

It's self-evident. rug Mar 2012 #16

oh well, then pokerfan Mar 2012 #17

Do you think the immorality of slavery is not self-evident? rug Mar 2012 #18

so self evident it apparently never existed pokerfan Mar 2012 #19

How interesting that this group Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #9

Was Paul talking about metaphorical slavery? laconicsax Mar 2012 #20

Whoever wrote that verse Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #21

But such cultural bias is maintained by many Christian sects to this day muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #23

Ahhh...more prooftexting. Sal316 Mar 2012 #24

oo oo oo, are we doing bible contradictions? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #25

What you've also never seen skepticscott Mar 2012 #27

Sal, you're prooftexting! trotsky Mar 2012 #28

Oooooh SNAP! Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #29

I'll try some in small doses this time. ;-) trotsky Mar 2012 #30

Welcome back, trotsky, and what an entrance to boot! cleanhippie Mar 2012 #35

Post 31 shows just how much trotsky rocks. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #40

Aw shucks, I can't take credit for that. trotsky Mar 2012 #63

Now that was righteous. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #47

I quit. Sal316 Mar 2012 #31

Good luck with your munitions R&D. laconicsax Mar 2012 #39

Sorry to see you leave. No, really. trotsky Mar 2012 #62

You don't understand, trotsky. laconicsax Mar 2012 #65

The clear reason that the Bible does not condemn or endorse slavery humblebum Mar 2012 #41

Yes, the fact that slavery isn't condemned by the Bible is ridiculous, offensive, and shameful. n/t laconicsax Mar 2012 #42

Aristole's theory of slavery humblebum Mar 2012 #43

Did you seriously call slavery both necessary and expedient? laconicsax Mar 2012 #44

No I didn't, but Aristotle did. And that demonstrates just how normal the social status humblebum Mar 2012 #49

Aristotelians do not claim that his utterances were divine. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #51

Who said they did? But, the study of any culture in that period humblebum Mar 2012 #52

So the bible is just cultural and not divine? Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #54

This is the key hypocrisy of those who deny what is really in the 'Scriptures'... Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #56

again missing the difference. Obviously intentionally. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #58

So the Bible isn't anything more than a product of it's time. laconicsax Mar 2012 #61

I agree with neither of your assertions and am running from nothing, however humblebum Mar 2012 #67

You can't have it both ways. laconicsax Mar 2012 #69

I have clearly stated my case, and really don't have clue what you are driving at. humblebum Mar 2012 #70

if that's your agruement then you eitehr miss the point, or it's a strawman deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #85

Well you are right "that slavery did exist exist." That's really all that needs to be said. humblebum Mar 2012 #88

Just telling you what eveeyone is "driving at" deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #89

As I added to the last post: humblebum Mar 2012 #90

not at all deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #91

You just said that you were judging by today's standards. humblebum Mar 2012 #92

so slavery was a step in social evolution? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #93

Listen, I certainly don't have all of the answers, but according to the Bible humblebum Mar 2012 #94

What makes you think the Bible is a reliable guide to the present? laconicsax Mar 2012 #95

Your opinion is yours, not mine. humblebum Mar 2012 #96

And out come the fundamentalist views. laconicsax Mar 2012 #100

Your opinion is your opinion, not mine. Out come the militant atheist views. humblebum Mar 2012 #103

Yes, those militant atheist views that the Bible isn't literally true. laconicsax Mar 2012 #104

Where did I say that it was all literally true? I am merely stating that one of the POV humblebum Mar 2012 #105

So when you denied that the Bible isn't literally true, what were you implying? laconicsax Mar 2012 #106

Quite the line of blather there. Are you sure you didn't confuse yourself? humblebum Mar 2012 #107

There you go again! You're contesting the claim that the Bible isn't literally true. laconicsax Mar 2012 #108

Then you should not be calling something historical fact, that isn't. Nowhere did humblebum Mar 2012 #109

You keep denying that the Bible isn't literally true! laconicsax Mar 2012 #110

You seem to be using a double negative in your question. humblebum Mar 2012 #111

Yes or No: Do you believe the Bible is literally true? laconicsax Mar 2012 #112

You are just kinda stumbling all over yourself trying humblebum Mar 2012 #113

Thank you for admitting your fundamentalist views. n/t laconicsax Mar 2012 #115

As well yours. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #116

I don't think you understand what certain words mean. laconicsax Mar 2012 #121

I think we are both aware of what certain words mean. humblebum Mar 2012 #123

So is it the word of God or the word of the dudes you said wrote it: Matthew, Mark, Luke et al.? Arugula Latte Mar 2012 #130

So you're saying that God pays attention to opinion polls? pokerfan Mar 2012 #45

Then you should be talking to your own ancient ancestors who lived back then, humblebum Mar 2012 #50

And yet the 'faith community' takes other parts of Scripture and demands that we Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #57

And not one word or complaint proves that there is no deity, and yet humblebum Mar 2012 #73

So much for divine revelation then pokerfan Mar 2012 #72

Partially you are correct, and much of it is also timeless. And that is why so many value it. humblebum Mar 2012 #74

And lot of it is disgusting pokerfan Mar 2012 #76

Really, which parts are timeless, and which aren't? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #81

Faith, hope, charity, compassion, love ... humblebum Mar 2012 #86

Oh, the good stuff. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #98

I think you are confusing it with 'The Atheist's Handbook,' which has all those humblebum Mar 2012 #99

Yeah, but unlike you, Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #114

You mean to say that radical atheist's actions are real and humblebum Mar 2012 #127

Depends on what you are talking about. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #131

much of it is timeless... in the context of it's time! n/t deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #84

"the shameful thing is the actual practice of owning human beings as property." humblebum Mar 2012 #53

So when did God figure out it was bad? Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #55

You're only right if scripture isn't part of a religion. laconicsax Mar 2012 #64

Yes, and that was thousands of years ago, and that is my point. humblebum Mar 2012 #66

Try hundreds, not thousands. laconicsax Mar 2012 #68

Then, you also know that Christianity was a driving force in the abolition movement.nt humblebum Mar 2012 #71

Actually, very few of the abolitionists, particularly in the United Kingdom and United States... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #80

I beg to differ. The Second Great Awakening spawned many new abolitionists - humblebum Mar 2012 #101

You do know that you just acknowledged that the Bible was written by men, right? UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #48

Yes, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, Paul, etc., were men. Very perceptive of you. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #75

You left out the monks that added scripture UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #77

OYG! You don't actually believe that the Gospels were written by their namesakes, do you? laconicsax Mar 2012 #87

It just gets better and better, doesn't it? n/t Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #97

Most likely they were. Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics humblebum Mar 2012 #102

Careful, humblebum, you are letting your hatred show... cleanhippie Mar 2012 #117

Now that was uncalled for. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #118

"Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists." cleanhippie Mar 2012 #119

C'mon cleanhippie. laconicsax Mar 2012 #122

Oh My. Aerows Mar 2012 #134

And just which one of those is synonymous with hatred? nt humblebum Mar 2012 #125

Used in conjunction to smear and demean all atheists, you expose your hatred. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #126

And just where did I ever smear and demean all atheists? And there you go humblebum Mar 2012 #128

"Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists." cleanhippie Mar 2012 #129

LOL! laconicsax Mar 2012 #120

He can't do that, as his "sources" are those "other ways of knowing." cleanhippie Mar 2012 #124

I hate to tell you, but much of your evidence against the Bible is drawn from"other ways of knowing" humblebum Mar 2012 #132

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #133

The OT and NT each contain many rules as to how slaves are to get sold or purchased Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #59

Yes, slavery was a normal part of virtually all cultures at that time. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #79

which as you've worked so hard to establish... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #82

Then why does it condemn many dietary practices that were normal parts of society at Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #60

The NT condemns no diet. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #78

nor slavery n/t deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #83

This lesson brought to you by the US govt and it's constitution (nt) The Straight Story Mar 2012 #46