Ignorance and the Bible

[gmark77]

But atheists are afraid to confront their Jewish neighbors and colleagues to say that.

And you aren't brave enough to tell a Catholic that Mary might have been a slut which is what your post suggested earlier.

Weird how hypocrisy works.

 

[Cypress]

And thank YOU for the tacit admission that you don't hold yourself to the same standards you do others.

When someone questions the OT you tell them they should say it to the Jews. I'm saying that if you question the Catholics you should be likewise as brave.

If you can't say it directly and looking them in the eyes then I suggest you are merely trying to divert the debate.

I'm not the one calling religionists irrational, uneducated, superstitious idiots.

I've actually explicitly and repeatedly said religion can be rational. And gave coherent reasons for believing so.

My historical interpretations and literary criticisms of scripture are not as inflammatory and demeaning as are atheist claims about Christianity

You have to walk on eggshells around Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists because you aren't motivated by a principled dispassionate atheism. Your motivation is strictly based on anti-Christian zealotry.

 

[gmark77]

I'm not the one calling religionists irrational, uneducated, superstitious idiots.

Nor have I.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, fundamental Christian theology is based on grace and salvation, and the redemptive power of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Luke and Mathew - the only gospels which briefly mention a birth narrative - say nothing directly about Christian practice and theology.

The gold standard for Christian practice, theology, and salvation are the epistles of Paul. Paul said nothing of consequence about Jesus' birth, and apparently considered it so inconsequential it doesn't factor in at all Paul's instructions and guidance on Christian practice, theology, and salvation.

Paul knew the apostles Peter and John, and he knew Jesus' brother James, so if the birth was so important they would have told him.

There is decent circumstantial evidence that Mark's gospel is based on Peter's teachings. Peter was Jesus' closest apostle, and the birth narrative is never mentioned in Mark. If the birth was so bloody important, you'd think Peter would have told Mark.


Now, the birth story of the Buddha is even more fantastical than the birth story in the Gospel of Mathew. But it doesn't figure prominently in the practice, beliefs, and metaphysics of Buddhism.

Atheists have never used the Buddha birth story to diminish Buddhism.

Agreed on grace and salvation, but most Christians don't seem to walk the walk, both past and present.

Why do you think the story of Buddha being a Prince who walked away from it all is fantastical? Even if stretching the title "prince" to simply mean a rich man's son?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not the one calling religionists irrational, uneducated, superstitious idiots.

I've actually explicitly and repeatedly said religion can be rational. And gave coherent reasons for believing so.

My historical interpretations and literary criticisms of scripture are not as inflammatory and demeaning as are atheist claims about Christianity

You have to walk on eggshells around Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists because you aren't motivated by a principled dispassionate atheism. Your motivation is strictly based on anti-Christian zealotry.

Of course you didn't. OTOH, you are the one arguing with a child.

In 1978 I was finishing up my Psych degree when the episode "Bailey's Show" came out on "WKRP in Cincinnati". He's a nutjob but his comment about children struck me as incredibly funny because it's true.

FWIW, unless studying them for research purposes, trying to rationalize with irrational people is an exercise in futility.

 

[Cypress]

Nor have I.

Sure you have, either explicitly or implicitly.

It's surprising that militant message board atheists claim they are so scientific and empirical, when they resort to opinion and emotion to taunt, mock, demean Christians as irrational and superstitious morons.

All of my statements and literary criticisms have not been based on emotion, but based verifiable facts or accepted methods of literary criticism

The Torah literally does seem to suggest Mary was pregnant by a Roman out of wedlock, that's not me making that up.

A Catholic biblical scholar literally did write that Mary's premarital pregnancy may have been the motivation for Luke and Matthew to write a theological account for what was otherwise a historical fact about a premarital pregnancy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

But atheists are afraid to confront their Jewish neighbors and colleagues to say that.

Much less the Muslims. LOL

 

[gmark77]

Sure you have, either explicitly or implicitly.

I will admit to doing so implicitly if you admit to implying Mary might have been a slut.

Otherwise I won't accept your view. I have said explicitly on this forum that there is a lot I actually like about Christianity. So it insults me grievously to have you suggest I just attack Christians and call them names.

 

[Based Chad]

I learned about the Luke and Matthew virgin birth narrative possibly being a cover story for a premarital pregnancy from a Catholic scholar:

"Only Luke and Matthew give us the news that Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph were married. ​

​

It would be difficult to overstate the impact of a premarital pregnancy on a Jewish observant village such as Nazareth. A premarital pregnancy, if the father were not the intended husband, would bring great dishonor and shame on a woman’s family. According to the Torah, Mary’s relatives would have been entitled to take her out of her parental house and punish her through stoning.​

​

Many scholars are prepared to accept that Mary’s premarital pregnancy must therefore be a historical event. Usually, when such potentially damaging stories appear in the Gospels, it means that the underlying oral or written tradition was simply too persistent or well known for the writer to ignore.​

​

Both Luke and Matthew use the Hebrew Bible to frame the story in a theological context."​

​

- Jean-Pierre Isboot, practicing Catholic and Biblical Scholar​

this logic is Stoopid.

you know that right?

 

[gmark77]

Much less the Muslims. LOL

That's a good example. When muslims get insulted sometimes they kill.

That's what religion buys you.

Just like when some Christians hear about an abortion provider they feel they have to kill the doctor.

It's religion.

 

[Into the Night]

it's a matter of taste I suppose.

Okay. You have no definition, then. It's just a 'matter of taste'.

ODDS ARE its at least PART of an oligarchy.

Math error: Failure to specify tableau or boundary. Failure to specify randX.

 

[Into the Night]

like the Catholic church and the Italian bankers are in it together.

P2 lodge ... etc.

really the Italian bankers are the deep illuminati.

they got Jews to take the fall.

 

[Into the Night]

I learned about the Luke and Matthew virgin birth narrative possibly being a cover story for a premarital pregnancy from a Catholic scholar:

Nothing in the Bible describes a premarital pregnancy here.

 

[Into the Night]

Little of what you say makes sense. You seem to have some mental illness.

Kettle fallacy.

 

[Hume]

Kettle fallacy.

go kill yourself you piece of garbage

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for the tacit admission that the information I have comes from a Catholic, lol.

There are undoubtedly Catholics on this board who have read me writing this. It's not the first time I've written it, and I'm never afraid of stating my opinions. But you are still afraid to confront your Jewish neighbors and colleagues to tell them their Hebrew God is a blood thirsty, genocidal maniac

You seem to forget that God created man. He has the perfect right to destroy it.

 

[Into the Night]

Reading comprehension problems?
Reading the entire Bible as literal fact and literal history is retarded.

So anyone reading the Bible is 'retarded'? Does that include you?

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not the one calling religionists irrational, uneducated, superstitious idiots.

I've actually explicitly said religion can be rational.

My historical interpretations and literary criticisms of scripture are not as inflammatory and demeaning as atheist claims about Christianity

Atheists make no claims about Christianity.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on grace and salvation, but most Christians don't seem to walk the walk, both past and present.

Why do you think the story of Buddha being a Prince who walked away from it all is fantastical? Even if stretching the title "prince" to simply mean a rich man's son?

Agreed

No, not the part about the young price. The birth narrative about the Bhudda being born out of the side of his mother, and being able to walk and talk immediately. There's something about a white elephant too, though I can't remember the details.

I don't have a problem accepting the historicity about how he walked away from his family and his royal inheritance to search for meaning and truth. India was chock full of wandering ascetics, so there's nothing fantastical about that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The only posters using rational literary criticism of the Bible on this thread are the two agnostics: me and Dutch

Both the atheists and the religionists are reading the Bible as strictly and as literally as the most conservative fire-and-brimstone Pentecostal would.

There is zero archeological evidence of mass destruction of towns, and mass graves in early biblical Israel.

The tribes who were supposedly totally wiped out make appearances chronologically later on in the Bible.

The rational conclusion is that while there may have been conflict and skirmishes, the scribes recording the oral tradition were using hyperbole and exaggeration as literary license.

In a land where most people are illiterate, story-telling and those who could read was a profession.

Agreed the atheists are as guilty as the fire and brimstone fanatics when it comes to taking the Bible literally. For the same reasons too: to push their agenda regardless of facts.

Were people literate in the time of Jesus? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel at that time (of Jews only, of course), was probably less than 3%.