Atheist Bibles-For-Porn Swap Riles Campus

[moobu2]

A college atheist group is offering students pornography in exchange for Bibles.

Atheist Agenda calls the exchange "Smut for Smut," prompting prayers and protests from Christian students at the University of Texas San Antonio campus.



Student Monica Cornado says it's offensive to compare pornography to "the Word of God."

University officials say the atheist group has the right to conduct the swap.

UTSA spokesman David Gabler says, "As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly."

The Atheist Agenda started at UTSA in 2005, and their first "Smut for Smut" campaign blew up into a national media sensation, reports CBS affiliate KENS in San Antonio. Past president Thomas Jackson was deluged with interview requests, and debated Tucker Carlson, the bow-tie-wearing conservative pundit, on MSNBC.

This year, organizers said a group of Christians amassed to protest the event, and one protester ripped a sign from someone's hands. But police kept a watchful gaze over students involved in heated debates, and did not report any violence.

>>LINK<<

[trotsky]

1. "Monica Cornado says it's offensive to compare pornography to 'the Word of God.'"

So I take it she's never read Song of Solomon, huh?

[whathehell]

3. Umm..There's a difference between sensuality and pornography

..The Song of Solomon is not porn...Get a grip.

[darkstar3]

7. No, but the story of Lot's daughters is surely more offensive than most porn. n/t

[DeSwiss]

27. Oh, I don't know D3.....

...it seemed to me that Lot's daughters were in fact, just another couple of incestuous Country Girls from a Red State. (I think in this case it means "red" as in still glowing from the destruction).

Which in some places, they view this kinda behavior as...... well, normal. Or at least they sound like, dress like and act like incestuous Country Girls. But I'll admit it's hard to tell, cause I even live in a Red State (not my fault - I was brought here as a child against my will) but they don't all act like this.

Well see for yourself --------------> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCSQg1jteAo">Checkout Lot and his incestuous Country Girl Daughters, GET IT ON!!!!)

See what I mean??? Now I admit that this story is worth plenty of porn to swap for (the upscale stuff like Penthouse or Screw, none of that low-market variety, mind you). And as we all know.... you can't expect incestuous Country Girls to uhmmm.....

- THINK!!! Remember George W. Bush?!?! Remember how they elected him?!?!?! Like that!






"Yes my hair stylist is from Australia, what of it?!?!"

[trotsky]

18. Obviously you haven't read it either. n/t

[whathehell]

21. Sorry, honey......I have read it.

Guess we differerent ideas about what constitutes "porn"

[trotsky]

28. I'm not your "honey."

And yes, we do. Probably because I am able to read your book with an impartial eye, whereas you seem to hold it in the same regard as the inerrancy-believing fundamentalist.

[whathehell]

30. And I'm very happy about that!...Just one thing I question, though

That "impartial" eye atheists generally self-annoint with, almost ALWAYS seems to conclude that: Atheists = Smart and RIGHT!..Everyone Else = Wrong, Stupid.


In other words, that "impartiallity" always leads to...Self-aggrandizement!..VERY objective, I'm sure!

It's an arrogance I RARELY see from any other group this board!

Minority defensiveness?...Close-mindedness?...I have NO idea...I'm just REALLY happy I'm not you!...Bye, Trots!:hi:

[trotsky]

36. Actually, I see that arrogance quite a bit from a certain type of poster.

You might want to check a mirror. But yeah, if you think the bible is literally true and inerrant, I'm pretty damn sure that I'm "righter" than you.

[izquierdista]

5. She should smear dung on her face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p6mArRqy2c

[The Magistrate]

2. If It reduces The Number Of Bibles On The Street, Sir, It Is Worth The Effort

Those things kill....

[ck4829]

4. A book full of rape, incest, and capturing virgins as prisoners of war doesn't compare to porn?

What world does she live on?

[whathehell]

10. She lives in the world of Shakespeare, Drama and Literature...Sorry.

Simply writing about particular incidents in life doesn't automatically equate to "porn"..In fact one of the most frequent observations about Porn is that it "has no story".

[MineralMan]

31. Whaddya mean, no story?

The pool cleaner guy comes by to clean the pool. The homeowner's daughter is out sunning herself on the diving board, working her tan-line-free overall tan. Both are surprised and enchanted with the situation. Porn ensues. There's your story. It's the story of true...well...something. There's always a story.

[LiberalFighter]

12. They should take those portions of the bible and post them out in the open.

Just change the biblical names.

And then when someone objects pull out the original to its side for them to compare. And then ask if it is still obscene.

[MineralMan]

32. Yah...Dick Long and His Daughters instead of Lot and His Daughters.

There's a movie in that one.

[whathehell]

6. I'm not "offended"...But it does, imo, show the desperation on the part of the atheists.

Pathetic.

[MineralMan]

8. That's just silly.

That's not desperation. They're just trying to make a point, and it's a good one, too.

You may not fully understand the point they're making. That's very sad.

[whathehell]

13. Sorry, I disagree...If they offered them a book

like Hitchen's "God is not Great" or something else offering an intellectual argument for atheism, I'd call it an exchange of ideas.

Offering college student porn is like offering candy to a baby, and makes no particular point except their opinion that "Religion sucks...nyah, nyah,nyah"!

Very sophomoric.

[Christa]

14. I don't agree at all

I bet there are few few, if any, college students who have not searched for porn online; porn will not be anything new to them at all.

[whathehell]

22. Eating candy is rarely a "new" experience either..Repeated usage, however,

is almost always welcomed!:D

[MineralMan]

15. Lot's daughters. All that nakedness uncovering.

And the greatest obscenity of all: God destroys all life on planet, save one family -- that of the aforementioned Lot. How well that worked out, too...

Religion is the most powerfully obscene thing on the planet, much of the time. Wars, slavery, murder, genocide, rape, incest. It's all there in the Bible for folks to fantasize about.

[whathehell]

20. Oh...so you're in favor of censorship?...You don't think people should "read and fantasize about"

things like "Wars, slavery, murder, genocide, rape, incest"..Because, as you say "It's all there in the Bible for folks to fantasize about".

Wow...If we followed that advice we'd have only G rated books and films!

MineralMan...I'm sorry, but you're in the shallow end of the pool on this one.

[skepticscott]

61. So your point is

that college students are weak-minded and without self-restraint (like babies) and unable to resist anything tempting but bad for them (like candy)? So how did it happen that all of these students had Bibles in the first place and not porn?

Just once it would be nice if the religionistas sent the first team in here to argue their points instead of people who keep rehashing the same arguments that have been demolished a hundred times, thinking all the while that they've come up with something profound.

[darkstar3]

9. Desperation?

And here I thought it was just a clever joke...

[MineralMan]

17. The desperation's on the part of the objectors.

They desperately need a sense of humor and some respect for differing philosophies, it seems to me.

[whathehell]

23. Ummm....Senses of humor differ...and that "respect" needs to go both ways!

[AlecBGreen]

64. dude cmon

"They desperately need a sense of humor and some respect..."

I am a Christian, not an "every-word-is-factually-true-and-literal" believer, but a Christian nonetheless. To say that the Bible is the same as pornography is pretty insulting. Are there disgusting portions? Yes. Just like the history of mankind, the Bible has stories of murder, rape, lust, greed, etc. But to equate it with "Anal Invasion XII" is pretty f'ed up. Lets show some respect.

[darkstar3]

65. You're right,

no one committed genocide or mass rape in Anal Invasion XII, so it's not fair to the porn industry to compare these movies to the Bible.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

87. I think you need to take a good long look at the Bible.

It explicitly endorses rape, genocide, and slavery, more than once apiece. They're not just in there, they are repeatedly ordered by god. It's not just lurid and distasteful, like "Anal Invasion XII," it promotes a morality that is seriously lacking in today's world.

[skepticscott]

59. Desperation?

And exactly why are they "desperate"? What is "desperate" about their situation, and what are they "desperate" to accomplish?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

84. Scott, I predict your post will have no replies.

These people only "argue" by throwing talking points, meaningless platitudes, cries of victimization and conspiracy theories around.

And of course, by "these people" I mean hateful bigots with an axe to grind, not all Christians. But of course the preceding sentence will be ignored and/or distorted too.

[skepticscott]

94. Not even just hateful bigots

But religionists who have lived their whole lives in a bubble, who have never had to formulate a coherent and logical argument in defense of their beliefs, and who go all to pieces rhetorically whenever someone challenges them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. You just described how hateful bigots are bred. One of the ways, at least. -nt

[skepticscott]

97. Well, true enough

By being fed misinformation, and being taught to hate and mistrust, and never having it challenged. Though fortunately, not everyone who grows up in a bubble turns out that way, or is resistant to new ways of thinking when they're exposed to them.

[Boojatta]

92. What is the significance of desperation? From the existence of desperation, what do you conclude?

Is the following in your opinion a manifestation of desperation?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Matthew 27:46 (King James Version)

[Christa]

11. I have quite a few bibles I don't use at all

it will be a good trade.

[MineralMan]

16. Me, too. And there's no porn in my library. Perhaps I should

broaden my collection. I think I could reduce the number of Bibles down to 10 or so, if the porn was good enough. I won't accept Playboys, though. They're not porn in the first place.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kanrok]

19. Kind of sad

People using porn, and it's strong association with sexual abuse, to make a point.

So let's exchange a Bible for porn, and in the end, contribute to porn addiction and the sexual abuse of men, women and children.

I get it now.

Brilliant.

[moobu2]

25. I don't believe all porno is associated with abuse. Some is, a lot is just business..

Besides, most porno is sold in areas where there's a higher percentage of christians anyway, so they're already buying a lot of it now. And, I think many, many more people are harmed by the Bible than by porno by far. Maybe trading porn for Bibles will help get more of those Bibles off the street and some good can come of it. :)

[kanrok]

35. I don't think I said all porn is associated with sexual abuse.

But a high percentage of it surely is.

I don't care who buys it, they all contribute to an industry that takes advantage of all involved.

But far be it from me to stop others from attempting to make a point.

What exactly the point is escapes me, though.

You claim that more people are "harmed by the Bible than by porno."

Not sure of the correlation here either.

Is there a recent spate of people chucking Bibles out of windows?

Please, do explain.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

86. Which makes porn different from every other industry how?

Every industry in our entire capitalist system is based on exploitation. Exploitation of workers, consumers, natural resources, and indigenous people is what keeps our economy going. Pornography doesn't seem like a particularly egregious offender to me.

And I think the implication is that you can do more good pleasuring yourself than by reading the Bible. I have to agree, the Bible is mostly without redeeming qualities.

[whathehell]

26. Don't bother, Kanrock...The simplicity of thinking here on both topics --

Atheism AND Porn -- is unshakeable...It all comes down to nothing more than:

PORN = Good...BIBLE = Bad.

Most will trot out the lamest arguments, and ignore the best, in an attempt to "concur" with that.

I'm at least happy that, as noted in the OP, with a name like "Atheist Agenda", they've dropped the pretense of "not prosyltyzing".

[skepticscott]

60. And how exactly are they "proselytizing"?

What tenets of atheism are they ramming down other people's throats? What atheist tracts are were they distributing here? Or is anyone expounding a worldview that you don't agree with labeled with the smear of "proselytizer"?

[whathehell]

73. Read the original post which I referenced.

Then tell me what part of "Atheist Agenda" you don't understand.

[skepticscott]

78. Well, gee...I think I understand all of it

They're a non-religious group that has *gasp* an AGENDA! What whacky world do you live in where this group's activities qualify as "proselytizing", while the activities of thousands of other non-religious groups that also have an agenda don't?

And please, come up with something halfway intelligent in the way of a response before you clog up even more bandwidth on this board...

[whathehell]

80. Well, gee....I don't think you do..

A. If you don't understand the phrase "having an agenda", I can't help you.

B. Learning to spell would help too ("whacky"..duh).. especially before spouting off embarrassing demands for "something halfway intelligent"..:eyes:

It's been real..Good bye and good luck!

[trotsky]

82. "Whacky" is listed as an alternate spelling in the first two online dictionary hits.

So before you start spouting off claiming someone has made a spelling error, perhaps you should look up the word to be sure. Especially when you then go on to berate them (as Jesus undoubtedly would, too) for being stupid.

[darkstar3]

83. I believe it is you

who doesn't understand the phrase "having an agenda". It is mutually exclusive from "proselytizing". While proselytizing can be part of someone's agenda, simply having an agenda does not remotely imply that proselytizing is involved.

Ignorance is no reason to accuse others, especially those whose language skills easily surpass your own, of stupidity. You should apologize.

[skepticscott]

93. Well, why don't you help me, then....

Tell me what "having an agenda" means, aside from wanting to accomplish certain goals, and having certain methods in mind to accomplish them. And then tell us all how that qualifies as "proselytizing". I suspect the only response we get will be crickets.

[DeSwiss]

29. A Cub's fan is telling us about self-abuse.

- Now that is rich!

[MineralMan]

33. Bwaa...

:rofl:

[kanrok]

34. LOL

I'm a White Sox fan. My avatar is the Chicago Bears.

But your point is just as well made wrt the Bears.

And not to put too fine a point on it, it's sexual abuse of those who participate in the sex industry that concerns me.

As it should concern every right thinking person, atheists and religious alike.

[trotsky]

37. Evidently it's a point that's flying way over your head too.

Unless you're going to deny that there is sexual abuse in the bible, and that the bible has been used to subjugate women for centuries?

[MineralMan]

38. I do not suffer a woman to speak in church.

And that's that!

[trotsky]

39. Here you go.

[Sal316]

72. You do understand the context of that, right?

I mean, being someone more enlightened than us believers.

You know what the religious culture of 1st Century Corinth was, right?

You understand that it was where Aphrodite's temple was and this verse in reference to Pagan women, used to prophesying, speaking aloud, etc., that would come into the ekklesia and continue to speak in tongues and disrupt the services, right?

You understand that the greek word translated as "talk" or "speak" in 1Cor is the word laleō, which does not translate as, or mean, "preach".

I'm sure you knew all that and aren't just following the literalist/fundamentalist interpretation.....that would be very unenlightened of you.

[darkstar3]

81. You do understand that your context is not often used by current churches, right?

Come to the Bible belt, my friend, and see what that verse really means to Christians in modern times.

Your example of how this verse is supposed to be viewed, by the way, is just another in a long string of examples showing why the Bible is not, and should not be treated as, an applicable text in today's world.

[kanrok]

41. Yes, I'm aware of most of the arguments anti-theists make wrt the Bible

But it appears the message of the Bible flew over your head as well.

With all due respect to your position, anyone who uses the Bible for evil is not religious (nor Christian nor Jewish) in any sense of the word.

Also, there is quite a bit of difference with chronicling instances of sexual abuse (see, e.g., 2 Samuel 13, i.e., the "Crime of Amnon") and taking advantage of the victims of that heinous crime.

But I suspect you already know that.

If you find somewhere in the Bible language that condones sexual abuse, let me know.

[trotsky]

43. Ta da!

No True Scotsman appears on cue!

Next time there is any confusion on what the bible means, I will make sure to consult with you since you evidently understand it PERFECTLY and everyone else is WRONG.

[kanrok]

45. Please point out where I assert that I understand the Bible perfectly

and that everyone else is wrong.

Thanks.

[darkstar3]

46. That was the clearly implied message behind this gem of a statement:

With all due respect to your position, anyone who uses the Bible for evil is not religious (nor Christian nor Jewish) in any sense of the word.

Are you the sole definer of the concept of "evil"? Can you even point to a single, proper definition of the word? If not, how can you make this claim?

[kanrok]

48. Sorry

But you haven't answered the question I posed.

Nice try though.

[darkstar3]

52. Sorry,

but just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not an answer to your question.

Nice evasion though.

[trotsky]

47. Quite happily.

You said:

anyone who uses the Bible for evil is not religious (nor Christian nor Jewish) in any sense of the word.

Now in addition to the tremendous amount of anti-believer prejudice that statement reveals (and which you should be thankful I ignored for now), it also means that YOU know when the bible has been "used for evil." (I.e., interpreted and/or followed incorrectly.)

For instance - there are millions and millions of Christians who would say that if you support abortion rights, YOU are using the bible for evil. You're "killing babies." But you're telling those millions of people they're wrong and YOUR interpretation is correct.

[kanrok]

49. Another who does not answer the question posed.

And boy, am I ever thankful that you ignored whatever it was that you say you ignored.

It makes me feel muuuuuuch better.

[trotsky]

55. Ah, another loving, tolerant Christian. Jesus must be so proud of you!

I love how you completely ignored my example which perfectly illustrates YOUR insistence that you know better than all the other Christians how the bible is to be interpreted. Can't blame you for ignoring my post, since it puts your Sunday School theology at a severe disadvantage.

Now if you want to really answer a question - how can you tell when the bible has been used for evil? By what standard do you judge what is evil?

[kanrok]

58. Ummm.. wasn't it you who asserted

that the "Bible was used to subjugate women for centuries?"

That was what I was responding to.

Subjugating women and using the Bible as a rationale is evil.

Dontcha think?

Priests using religion as a subtext for sexual abuse of minors is evil.

My point, which you obviously missed, is that people who use religion in this fashion are clearly not "religious" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word.

Not that hard to understand, IMHO.

And despite your claim that my comment contained a "tremendous amount of anti-believer prejudice", you couldn't be further from the truth. Any prejudice you perceive in my comment is totally self-imposed.

But, WOW, I'm really happy I dodged that bullet.

LOL.

[trotsky]

62. So you're denying the bible has been used to subjugate women?

Seriously?

And yes, your comment exposed some very nasty prejudice: that only non-believers can do evil. You should learn and grow by recognizing your prejudices and realize that yes, Christians can be bad people too. Unless you never sin?

[kanrok]

63. Maybe you should go back and actually read the post you are now irrationally interpreting

Tell me where I said the following:

1. I deny that the Bible has been used to subjugate women;

2. That only non-believers can do evil; and

3. That Christians cannot be bad people.

I'll wait.

[trotsky]

68. Here you go! So sorry for the delay.

1. I never said you denied it - I *asked* if you did. You haven't answered.

2&3. Here, once again, is your quote:

anyone who uses the Bible for evil is not religious (nor Christian nor Jewish) in any sense of the word

Logically, this means that the subset of people who use the bible for evil shares NO elements with the subsets of people who are religious, and Christian or Jewish. Anyone who uses the bible for evil is not religious. Your words. Therefore the only people using the bible for evil are non-religious. Non-believers.

The statement also means that anyone using the bible for evil isn't a Christian. So the instant a Christian does that (by merely interpreting the bible differently than you I might add), they are not a Christian anymore.

[kanrok]

69. You're reading wayyyy to much into my comment

I would say that once a Christian (or a Catholic like me) uses the Bible in particular, or religion in general, as an excuse for performing evil acts, they are not acting Christian in any sense of the word.

Like priests using religion as a pretext for sexual abuse of minors.

Inherently evil and not in any way based on the Catholic faith, nor the Bible.

Same for using the Bible as a basis for subjugating anyone.

It is inherently evil.

And to answer your question (which I thought I did already) the answer is "no", I don't deny that the Bible has been used as a pretext to subjugate women.

The Bible has been used as a rationale for many evil acts.

My point is that using that document (or religion in general) as a basis for evil acts is in no way "religious."

Much the same way radical Islam perverts the Koran.

I like the story of the Rabbi and the soap-maker.

A soapmaker comes to see a Rabbi with a complaint.

He tells the Rabbi that he sees priests molesting children, wars being fought, and people flying into buildings, all in the name of religion.

He tells the Rabbi that he came to the conclusion that religion doesn't work.

The Rabbi thinks for a minute, then takes the soap maker to the window and points to some boys playing outside.

He tells the soap maker that one of the boys has dirty hands, the other a dirty face, the last is just plain dirty all over.

The Rabbi tells the soap maker that because of what he sees, he has come to the conclusion that soap doesn't work.

What does the soap maker say?

Soap works! You just have to use it properly.

And that, my friend, is the end of my involvement in this very interesting thread.

Cheers.

[trotsky]

71. On the contrary, your comment says WAAAAAY much more than you think it does.

You are basically so submerged in the No True Scotsman fallacy that it's become your only way to look at this issue. You know what a "real" Christian is or does, and therefore anyone who acts differently than what you think a Christian should be, isn't a Christian at all. Simple!

My point is that using that document (or religion in general) as a basis for evil acts is in no way "religious."

And you're begging the question as to how you define evil. I already gave you one great example (which you ignored, of course) of how an anti-choice Christian is going to think that YOU, if you support abortion rights, are using the bible to support an evil act. Do you understand the problem here? It all comes down to how you choose to interpret a highly confusing, highly contradictory, ancient collection of religious stories of bronze age nomads.

Soap works! You just have to use it properly.

Cute little story, but just like EVERY cute little story that's suppose to excuse religion, it misses the point. Everybody can agree on how to use soap. Can you find me two people who agree *completely* on religion?

I understand why you want to bow out, though. These are tough questions.

[kanrok]

74. Far be it from me to avoid an interesting conversation

Your questions, although interesting, are in no way "tough."

Not if you analyze them appropriately.

So let me give it a whirl.

Your "No True Scotsman" fallacy does not apply to my comment.

The major problem with that line of argument is the lack of authority defining what constitutes a "true Scotsman."

I'm not Scottish, so I cannot say unequivocally that there isn't a Department of Determining What A True Scot Is, replete with instruction books and classes. But I'm fairly sure none exists.

But I am Roman Catholic, and I know that there are two documents (at least) I can look to for instruction as to what constitutes a good Catholic.

That would be the Bible, and the Catholic Catechism.

The Ten Commandments are not the "Ten Suggestions."

They provide me with a basic understanding about what is required of me.

The Catechism teaches me, explicitly, what is required of me.

(BTW, I cannot speak for any other Christian religion. I' don't know what they teach specifically, but I'm sure that it is generally similar).

No Scot is taught what constitutes a "True Scot", therefore, it is open to interpretation.

Catholic Doctrine is NOT open to interpretation, and any well-taught Catholic would agree with that concept.

But not every Catholic follows Doctrine consistently.

I know Catholics who disagree with the Church's stance on abortion, contraception and transubstantiation, among others.

Heck, there are priests that don't agree that Satan exists.

There are some who follow Doctrine to the comma.

The Church has a name for them.

We call them "saints."

I am not one.

I know of none, but some come close.

The bottom line is that there is no universal agreement among one billion Catholics about their individual beliefs.

But the rules they are to follow are pretty clear.

That's why my "cute little story" about the Rabbi and the soap maker is more apropos than your use of the "No True Scot" fallacy.

While we all know how to use soap, we were all once taught how to use it.

It's up to us to use it properly, in order to make it work for us.

The same is true for religion.

We have the template, all we have to do is follow it.

So Christians can disagree about abortion, but that doesn't mean they are following what they are taught.

We have a name for those who pick and choose what they believe.

They are called "Cafeteria Catholics."

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Cheers.

[trotsky]

75. Let me begin with one word: Paragraphs.

They are your friend.

They help collect common thoughts and put them together in a more readable unit.

You should try using them.

Seriously.

But anyway, I find it frustrating that you continue to dodge the central issue here: you are declaring what is a Christian (only a Catholic, obviously) based on a particular interpretation of a book. Do you admit there is the possibility that you (or Catholic scholars of the present or past) could be wrong?

And quite frankly, your thinking exemplifies the No True Scotsman fallacy. Like a Scotsman (one who is from Scotland), there is a basic, generic definition of Christian: one who believes in the divinity of and redemption through Jesus. Apart from that, all bets are off. Do true Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge? Well, that depends on one's personal spin on what attributes a Scotsman should have. Do true Christians support abortion rights? This ALSO depends on one's personal spin on a definition. And because it has the additional baggage of being based on an interpretation of a retranslation of a translation of a compilation of an editing of a transcription of a retelling of an oral story passed through several hundred people, you really have no firm ground on which to stand, even if you have personally declared one particular interpretation the lone true and correct one, and are backed up by the writings of the employees of an institution that viciously murdered or tortured those who disagreed. Oh, and about billion other people alive today who ALSO claim the label "Christian" disagree with you (and each other, of course).

So your quote that:

We have the template, all we have to do is follow it.

Is ridiculous on its face - you are basically saying that Catholicism is the one true religion, and everyone else in the world simply fails to follow it.

Finally, I have one very specific question that I would like you to answer: Do you, personally, support abortion rights?

[kanrok]

76. I'm sure you find my reasoning frustrating.

Seeing as how you continue to miss the import of my words.

Your "No true Scotsman" fallacy is unavailing.

See my post above.

You continue to put words in my mouth, i.e., "you are basically saying that Catholicism is the one true religion, and everyone else in the world simply fails to follow it."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I follow Catholicism.

You don't have to.

You have a real problem following an argument you don't agree with.

I understand.

Really, I do.

It's hard to look at things from another's perspective.

As for abortion, I follow Catholic Doctrine.

We can continue to go round and round, but I have actually had my fill.

Peace to you and yours.

[darkstar3]

77. What reasoning?

You can't simply say "nuh-hu!" and call it reasoning.

The No True Scotsman fallacy describes what you've done here to a tee. You stated that anyone who does something you consider evil while using the Bible to justify their actions is not a Christian. Ergo, you have implied strongly that you know both the true definition of evil and the true definition of Christian.

I suggest you read up on the fallacy. Your failure to understand it does not change the fact that you are employing it here in this thread.

A few other notes:
1. You've shown quite a bit of condescension and dickitude toward trotsky and others in this thread. Jesus must be proud of you...
2. Anti-abortion sentiment is one of the few remaining bastions of socially acceptable subjugation of women. That you support it through and because of your church's doctrine is nothing to be proud of, and in fact makes you one of those people who does something evil and uses the Bible to support it.
3. Several Catholics on this very board would probably disagree with you about interpretation. After all, every time I introduce these supposed Catholics to their Catechism, they try to tell me how wrong it is. Are you right, or are they?
4. Finally, on your soap story: Soap does work, but it can also be used for nefarious purposes, such as washing mouths out, or inflicting bruises on people after being stuffed into a sock and swung. If the injurious uses of soap were more numerous than the helpful uses, or if the injurious uses were far more frequently implemented, soap would most likely be banned from civilized society. We ban all kinds of things that have positive effects if their negative effects are weightier. (see cocaine) See where I'm going with this?

[trotsky]

79. But wait - you can't run away now!

It's just getting interesting! You admit now that you oppose abortion rights. What do you say, then, to your fellow Catholics who support them? Are they using the bible for evil? Are they not Catholics (Scotsmen) anymore?

Are you also saying that you agree with the official church dogma on everything? And I mean EVERYTHING? Or do you disagree with the Pope on maybe one issue? Because you do realize that if you veer just one iota from official church doctrine, you've just been smashed by your own Scotsman!

It's hard to look at things from another's perspective.

Yeah, you seem to have a big problem with that - you seem incapable of understanding why, after you say that anyone who is interpreting the bible differently than you (using it for "evil") is not a Christian, and indeed not religious at all, that some might be offended. But then since you are apparently a big fan of the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, I guess it makes sense why you think the way you do.

[Cleobulus]

91. So you use the Bible to support something evil(subjugation of women)...

in your "Pro-life" stance, and yet you still call yourself a Christian?

[Cleobulus]

89. What is the message of the Bible?

First off, there are many different versions of the Bible, variants of both the Hebrew Bible and the many different versions of the Christian Bible. All of which were compiled from many different sources in an attempt to combine them into a single narrative. Frankly, that's a failure, all these Bibles are compilations of about 3500 years worth of oral history, religious laws, and written narratives that were retold, reinterpreted, translated and re-imagined countless times by many different authors. It should be no surprise that most versions of the Bible are self contradictory at the very least.

[Cleobulus]

90. Does rape count?

Judges 21:10-24 (New International Version)

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin." 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.' 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah."

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.' "

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the girls were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.

24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance.


You could interpret the "taking of wives" thing as the Israelites being nice and trying to woo the women into marriage rather than forcing it on them, but then again, "carrying them off" sort of leaves that interpretation out.

[darkstar3]

40. I find it fitting, actually,

considering that the Bible also leads to the abuse, sexual or otherwise, of men, women, and children.

[kanrok]

42. Do tell!

A link to a scientific study would be nice.

[anonymous171]

70. What do you expect? They are atheist college students.

Basically the atheist equivalent of the 50 year old church ladies that want all teh geys burned at the stake along with Harry Potter books.

[Unvanguard]

44. Dammit, I don't have any Bibles. n/t

[On the Road]

50. It's Too Bad in a Way --

The kids should hold on to those Bibles and read them. They need to know what's in there.

[darkstar3]

54. And which part do you think would benefit them most,

since you seem to think that knowing "what's in there" would help them in some way?

[On the Road]

56. I Think Knowing the Whole Thing Would Help Them

It's the most important cultural document in Western civilization, but half the population seems to think it's the Sermon on the Mount writ large, and the other half thinks it's a cesspool of fanaticism and evil. The Book of Judges is great for shock value, but the Epistle of James has a kind of sweetness, uprightness, and literacy that is edifying whatever your religious persuasion.

In truth, there are all kinds of elements in there. Some of them are alarming, and some of them are touching. You can't sum it up and imply that the Bible is this, and you don't need to know the details.

For disinterested college students, the best place to start might be R. Crumb's 'Genesis'. I gave one to my daughter for Christmas.

[darkstar3]

57. While highly referenced in classical literature,

I do not believe that the Bible is the "most important cultural document in Western Civilization." In fact, I don't think you can claim any single document as the most important in Western Civilization.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

51. This looks pretty pornographic to me.

Ezekiel 23:20
One of the sisters had lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.


After taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine to a mob of perverts (who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they "abuse her all night." The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite puts her dead body on an ass and takes her home. Then he chops her body up into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Judges 19:22-30


Deuteronomy:
If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go." 21:11-14

If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep. 22:13-21

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die." 22:22

If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." 22:23-24

If a woman is raped in the country, then only the man shall die (since there was no one to hear her if she cried out.) 22:25

If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. 22:28

"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." 22:30

You can't go to church if your testicles are damaged or your penis has been cut off. 23:1


===========

[skepticscott]

53. If the Bible were a movie

It'd be rated NC-17

[onager]

85. Hmm. More like rated R or PG-13.

Year One (2009) - in which we learn that Cain and Abel had a lesbian sister, and Sodom was a pretty cool place ruled by a blonde, blue-eyed king. Not a pillar of salt to be seen.

Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content throughout, brief strong language and comic violence. (edited; originally Rated R for some sexual content and language.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045778/


And God Spoke (1993) - starring Soupy Sales as Moses, Lou Ferrigno as Cain, and Eve Plumb as Mrs. Noah. Also a Nativity angel who may get the screen credit, "Angel Who Blew The Producer For Her SAG Card." God is played by a Cadillac-driving neo-hippie, which IMO certainly beats that grouchy deity in Exodus.

MPAA Rating = R.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045778/

[Cleobulus]

88. Most biblical based movies are self censored before they are even made...

A movie about Lot and his daughters will leave out the incest/taking advantage of Lot, for example. Many other examples are available.

[Sal316]

66. Nice, promoting exploitation of women.

Good one.

[darkstar3]

67. I think that's part of the point,

or at least it should be. Both promote the exploitation of women.

[nickinSTL]

95. my first thought on hearing about this was...

damn, I don't own a bible! :evilgrin:

[sakabatou]

98. You know, the people saying it's abhorrent for the swap...

Have they even read the Bible? Do they know what's even in it?