We had this event in Germany last week. A group of activists showed up with a statue of Martin Luther that had some quotes of his printed on his cape. Result: activists got removed by the cops and charged with incitement.

Guess people don't like to be reminded that Luther's antisemitism in 1524 might very easily be mistaken for quotes by Hitler.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-34.htm

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lurgee.

I love the pointless rationalization by the guy near the end. So husbands should love their wives unconditionally? Presumably because their wives are silent and submissive, right? How does the former cancel out the latter?

I know it doesn't make sense but the New Testament (which the guy at the end quotes) essentially wipes the slate clean. The Old Testament (which 1st Corinthians comes from) is kept in there as history books, perhaps, then?

Looking for the "Parody" tag that wasn't there ....

1st Corinthians is most certainly New Testament.

Yes indeed! The full quote has a specific meaning: that women should stay silent in church as per the law. This was the law of the land at the time and is strange for Paul to say since he supposedly held the law (Mosaic Law) in disdain. His particular instructions were only intended for the people he was speaking to. He didn't forsee that some person would attempt, two millenium later, to apply those intructions to a foreign situation.

Very importantly, only recently in history have some versions of Christianity abandoned what is called Tradition and started taking the word of the bible as its own contextual source (sola scriptura). The Orthodox and Catholic churches have Tradition and it lays down a continual (2000 year old) framework for which to interpret the bible and other aspects of the religion.

I'm not a scholar in this area so I don't know a lot, perhaps someone else can chime in.

TLDR - the verse has been taken out of context.

So, should women still stay silent and submissive in church?

Whoops! My bad!

It makes me wonder if he was trying to be dipolomatic in that manner. Even if he disagreed with the law maybe he gave that one to the Corinthians in order to keep their attention and encourage change or something of the sort.

That's what I thought, but someone pointed out that Jesus said (paraphrasing) 'I have not come to erase the law of the prophets, I have come to fulfill it. Anyone ignoring or telling you that one single letter of the (Christian religious) law is erased will never enter heaven.'
(Mathew 5:17-5:19)

So, how does the new testament erase the old, considering that position?

I think that is precisely the point. It wasn't written for *us*, so why do so many treat it as if it was? It may as well be written in latin, given that to get the "true" meaning you need scholars to provide you with context, to steer you must past imperfect translation and to point out which side of the contradictions to fall on. One might wonder why it is so nebulous, and who it serves by being so.

I mean, Christians can't even agree on which day to go to Church. Not sure why I'd pay too much credence when there doesn't seem to be much consensus on what The Word actually is.

The Bible can't even figure out what the Ten Commandments are.

I bet you can't find a single Christian walking down the street who can quote the ACTUAL Ten Commandments. There were two lists of "shall nots" and while it says they're identical, they clearly are not. The first, Moses destroyed, and the second is the only list referred to as "Commandments".

The Bible is wildly inconsistent, as anyone who actually read the stupid thing would know.

The Bible is Fake News...

Just like the JJ Abrams Star Trek.

I love the rationale that it doesn't matter what one verse says, because this other verse counters the first. So if I understand, the Bible was written for you to just pick and choose the parts you like?

Leaving aside the accuracy of the verse or whether it applies to people or not....

Is this guy surprised that people are pissed off at him? If I saw that on a truck (particularly in the southern US), I'd assume he was another redneck bible thumper; the same way I'd assume that someone quoting Hitler was a Nazi.

This is Poe's Law in full effect. Would anyone be surprised if an actual Christian (again, especially in the southern US) actually believed that?

The bible wasn't written as a book. It is a compilation of discrete articles, written at different times, in different places, by different authors, that are venerated by the church.

Importantly, as I explained above, the Orthodox church (the original church) and the Catholic church (the first schism) have a written and oral Tradition that outlines the meaning of everything (specifically to avoid this situation).

No. It's not an instruction directed at us.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

I think there needs to be a 3rd testament that really clears this shit up.

And if we are supposed to just use common sense, then it means we don't need the bible at all, since that would mean we have an innate ability to make good decisions ourselves.

You don't need religion of any kind to spread compassion and unity. We can teach that to people without all of the metaphysical juju, and without burying the good messages in a minefield of misogyny and xenophobia.

Also how about we learn to do good things for the sake of goodness, which is it's own reward, instead of the threat of eternal punishment.

But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

I hear you, but the interpretation part is where I think the problem lies.

While you have a fairly benevolent interpretation, someone else who has trouble getting laid could read it as a god given justification to own sex slaves. That's a pretty extreme example of course, but you can imagine that there would be interpretations varying between your example and my extreme example, many of which could be used to oppress women.

When all that was needed was a simple "no gossiping in church" rule. It's a clear command, unmistakable and unexploitable for anything other that it's original intention.

So a 3rd testament would start with the words READ THIS LITERALLY :-)

Right now though - How do we know whether or not take the bible word for word? It's not even clear whether that is up to us to decide.

It's your interpretation that's made you decide not to read it literally, but instead to interpret it with the overall goal of viewing the good in the bible. And that says more about you being a good person, rather than the contents of the bible. I think you would be advocating living a compassionate lifestyle whether or not you read the bible.

That's why I'm thinking it's unnecessary to even have religion, when we can just teach ethical behavior, and ethical thinking in a very clear way, which leaves no room for error, or danger of allowing people to justify their bad behaviors.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good discussion - Sift of the week!

Thanks dag & transmopher.

Oh yeah, this 3rd Testament you advocate would be most useful. There are external references throughout the centuries that helps people understand it in better context. Matthew Henry for example - not perfect, but useful. But I'm afraid human nature would just twist and corrupt anything. Pretty soon a 4th Testament will be needed.

The big problem with religion is the defensiveness of its practitioners. When people outside of their religion points out the weird crap in their holy text (weird in the present, not so much during the time it was written), they go all up in arms and goes on the attack. Yet so many withing their rank uses bits and pieces of the text out of context to justify horrendous behavior. Where is the self-criticism? Where's the self-reflection? Where's the self-correction?

It's no wonder atheist wants religion out. But realistically, religion is not going out the door anytime soon. I can understand that want too, really, I want the bad crap out of religion just as much.

But I do see the goodness within and just trying my best to achieve the same goal from an opposite (?) vantage point. If we're all here fighting evil, I don't care in what name you do it for, I'm going to support you.

Today's terrorism problems have no better authority than Muslim leaders coming out and condemn and explain their religion to the world. Christians needs to preach compassion towards their neighbors rather than fear & loathing, it's what Jesus commands. That's peaceful, cross-faith discussions the religious leaders of all faiths lack so much of. But I just don't see much of that up top...

If you think you have an invisible magic friend, your delusional.

Exactly, it's natural to assume he's endorsing that bible passage and not criticizing it.

If he made it clear he's just pointing out crazy biblical shit most people aren't aware of, he'd get a lot less hate.

This is extremely important, and (as far as I know) is extremely prevalent in Judaism, where the notes and interpretations are literally just as important as the scripture itself. These notes have been debated and clarified over the centuries by people who specialise in studying it; beyond that there is still debate, and the notes are still evolving. This means they have something of a self-righting mechanism whereby the mistakes of the past can be corrected.

This is in a way similar to the scientific approach, but using debate instead of empiricism.

The problem is that most christian churches ignore this fact and go by the interpretations of the church leader(s). The most extreme are the bible literalists who can justify pretty much anything by cherry-picking passages. The larger established churches like the catholics have some of this, but are largely missing the key feature of self-correction (except over far longer periods of time, and almost fully at the discretion of the pope).

I don't think he cares so much about the hatred, he may even relish it.

I'm thinking that if he made it clear he's criticizing the bible, he would avoid the anger of non/less religious people that are offended by the verse, but garner the more dangerous hatred of zealots enraged at a slight against their belief system...he's unlikely to get them to critically examine it either way.
Thought about that way, he was being smart by being misleading. ;-)

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by ant.

Well, if I go about interpreting your word wrong, the fault lie in me and not you, right?

Bible records the words of God and the history of the people too. Since the people in it are fallible, of course it should include those faults in the text for honesty.

Simple question:

Where in the bible does it say God is omnipotent?

I ask because as far as I know it doesn't. It speaks of his power, mystery, understanding all being great. But it doesn't say he is omnipotent. The closest you'll probably get is in Jeremiah where he has a high opinion of God saying "nothing is too hard for you".

Sure we could do that...but then the priest class would have to get -real- jobs.

In which case you don't know anything about the bible except for hearsay. You don't have much to argue then...

True, but I wasn't arguing, I asked a few questions.
I'm well versed in logic, but that is not applicable when it comes to the bible or religion.

Can I *quality this quote @siftbot?

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by lurgee.

You might want to re-read your bible (I refuse to capitalize it).

Revelation 19:6:

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Also Matthew 19:26 “with God, all things are possible” and Luke 1:37 “with God nothing is impossible” make it clear the Christian god is omnipotent without actually using the word.

And even if it wasn't explicitly written, in practice every major sect of Christianity follows the doctrine that the Christian god is both omniscient (i.e. going to judge everyone for their sins on judgement day) and omnipotent (i.e. can do anything, such as create a universe from nothing).

EDIT: So @newtboy's original comment stands. The bible's inconsistencies are too huge for anyone not completely indoctrinated into Christianity to ignore.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Why would I want to re-read the BIBLE (I capitalised it because really, it makes no difference)? I wrote AFAIK. I didn't say it did not say it. I specifically asked for this information in case anyone else had it (which I made clear).

It seems only very old translations say omnipotent (i.e. king james, third millenium). All new translations have "Lord God Almighty". Almighty is a synonym to omnipotent.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/19-6-compare.html

Judging sins (i.e. knowing what happens in a limited situation) is not omniscience.

Creating the universe, while powerful, is not omnipotent.

I.e. your examples fit the second meaning of omnipotent/almighty, which is "greatly powerful".

Now, Matthew 19:26 is interesting because it is actually a quote from Jesus. That's the new closest thing to omnipotent for me. EDIT: no, thinking about it, he might be saying "it's possible", as in it has a probability of happening.

EDIT 2: Very importantly, reading the Bible by itself causes these very problems. I mentioned the Orthodox Tradition above - where they have an oral and written history that defines the interpretation so that people don't make up their own shit (like I do all the time - lol).

@newtboy 's original comment may stand in your eyes. But you don't get to dictate whether it is a fact or not. But more importantly than that - what comment are you referring to? I don't see him having written what you are paraphrasing.

@harlequinn

Why should you re-read the bible? Because, like most Christians, you clearly demonstrated that you don't know what it actually says (which is the point of the video), and yet here you are telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay. So... hypocrisy much?

But then you double-down and are now trying to argue with me that the Christian god is not actually considered omnipotent--despite me pointing out three places in the bible where it explicitly states "he" is. Although I'm not at all surprised that a religious person is arguing against facts, I actually agree with the sentiment. If a Christian god truly existed, one look at the state of the world would tell you that "incompetent" is a better descriptive adjective than "omnipotent."

Look man, I get it. You're invested in your religion. I was once too, and just like you argued with atheists about these kinds of arcane points (i.e. is the Christian god omnipotent?) before slowly realizing it is all bullshit and that humanity at this stage of development would be much better off without religion (and by religion I mean any philosophical way of life that uses "faith" as it's primary source for finding truth instead of rational thinking). I don't deny it served a purpose once as a unifying social force, but its day is done. One day you'll either come to the same conclusion or you'll ignore the mountains of problems it causes in the world because you feel it brings you some measure of peace or clarity or whatever. I hope it's the former for you.

Unfortunately, knowing a lot of religious people, I expect it will be the latter. In which case, I can only hope your religion brings you only happiness and you keep it from damaging others' lives as much as possible.

LOL. Dumbest assumption of the month. No seriously.

I'm not "telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay" - I'm pointing out what he has already admitted (hopefully you can see the difference). If I've read the bible and don't remember 100% of it (fucking please - I was clear that my knowledge wasn't eidetic) and you compare it to someone who hasn't read it at all - then that is a false equivalence. If you're going to try and call out some form of hypocrisy, you should probably get your argument right.

Pick any book you've read and I'll find something you don't know in it. I won't suddenly argue that "you don't know what it actually says", because that is not true. You would have limited knowledge, like every human, on every topic that has ever been.

Has your self-confessed atheism brought you peace? Are you an angry atheist? Are you vegan? Lol. I'm guessing that you googled every verse you quoted. So how much of the knowledge is yours?

As above - the bible read by itself without the context of Tradition becomes untenable. And literal interpretations are often incorrect.

No, I didn't argue that those verses you quoted don't say something along the lines of him being all powerful - they clearly do. I don't have issue with that. They say what they say.

I'm making my own analysis and argument of your examples (not referring to the verses), and the verses (separate from your examples). Do you have a problem with that? Are you calling the Bible fact? Or are you saying that the definitive interpretation of those passages is what you say it is and that is the "fact"? Or that those passages say what they say (and this is the fact) regardless of whether they are true or not? Not that you're unclear or anything.

I see you agree with my statements. Yet you go and make all these assumptions. Go figure.

Hey I'm sure whatever system you come up with will be heaps better than anything that's gone before. I hear all the 20th century attempts worked out really well.

@harlequinn

Yeeeaaaaaah...

Judging by the incoherent rambling of that last post, it looks like I struck a nerve. I mean, come on man. You claim you can't remember everything you read, but in this case you somehow didn't remember that the Christian god is omnipotent--a fundamental doctrine of every major denomination of Christianity in existence today? That's seriously your defense?

Quit your bullshit. You tried to shut down @newtboy and got yourself shut down instead. I'm sure that's frustrating and contributed to the nonsensical nature of that last post, but still....

To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:

1) Yes, atheism has brought me immense peace. It felt great to let go of religion--Christianity specifically--especially all the guilt-tripping and fire-and-brimstone bullshit that went along with it. As a side bonus, I felt relieved that I was no longer financially subsidizing a bunch of pedophiles (I left long before the major scandals broke in mainstream media).

2) No, I'm not angry but I am certainly annoyed at all the numb nuts who keep blowing themselves up, discriminating against the LGBT community, and trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies using only their Bronze Age (or older in the case of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism) superstitious beliefs as the rationale for their behavior.

3) No, I am not vegan. Just had fried chicken for dinner tonight.

4) Yes, I had to Google the exact passages but I knew the bible said somewhere that god was omnipotent because, as a former Christian, I'd read through it several times before. Sorry to hear you are so "forgetful" about the holy text that forms the backbone of your religion. Actually, I know you're not forgetful; the point the guy in the video is making is that most Christians choose not to look at the parts of the bible they don't like or even worse make ridiculous convoluted arguments to try to explain them away (as you tried to do here in explaining away god's omnipotence/omniscience).

Moving on, the "tenability" of Christianity has nothing to do with "Tradition." The whole thing is a house of cards. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you want to interpret any holy text in the world literally or through some collective interpretation by an ostensibly educated priest-class. What makes all religion untenable is the fact that it is 100% made up bullshit. There is as much evidence for the existence of a Christian god as there is for Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy (i.e. none).

Finally, no, I don't need to come up with a system to replace religion. It already exists and it is called "using reason and compassion." The idea itself that we need some system to control us or protect us from ourselves is archaic and frankly anachronistic in this day and age.

Now, I mean this in all seriousness--I wish you the best. I was you once, a long time ago, trying to stave off the cognitive dissonance of being a rationale human being yet also believing in a religion. I'd argue with atheists just like you're trying to do now. But the thing is... they made good arguments. The stuff they pointed out stuck with me. At first I'd shrug it off, but the facts nagged at me and nagged at me until I finally set out to prove those pesky atheists wrong--only to find out through research that everything they were saying was 100% correct.

Like I said in the previous post, you'll either face the facts or turn away and hide from them. I can't tell you if you'd be happier or not without religion--no one can. What I can tell you is that at the very least you would no longer be contributing to a collective hive-mind that has very real and very negative effects on the world we live in, regardless of whatever benefits the religion may bring to you personally. Either way, I sincerely wish you peace.

Incoherent to you maybe. Rambling no (my comments should roughly match up line for line as replies to your text - I didn't use quotes). Struck a nerve? No. But it looks like you've got a lot to say for someone who doesn't care for religion.

Almost nobody can remember all they read. This is not a unique claim. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with more than one major denomination - so don't speak on behalf of the others. You're pretty hung up on me needing to have remembered this thing in particular? Sorry but I didn't know this - that's why I asked (ffs). In this regard you're weak at being compassionate. I'm sorry, what is it you think I'm defending? My words? They don't need defence mate. They stand on their own.

I'd have to have some bullshit to quit it. I didn't try to shut down @newtboy (pointing out a truth of his own admission is not shutting him down - got that Mr. Reason?) and I certainly haven't been shut down myself (surprise motherfucker - I'm right here). That you can't understand the fairly straight forward last post shows a lot about you.

"To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:"

You missed several questions. Four in fact. I expected as much.

"The back bone of my religion" You're at it again. The retard is strong in you.

I'm not explaining away God's omnipotence. I'm making a fairly straight argument that he's not omnipotent (as in all powerful). I've used the straight forward translation of the word (the simplest argument is that omnipotent also means greatly (not all)) powerful and the refutation of your defence that he is in fact all powerful. This isn't some apologist thing, or defence of some fucked up part of the bible. I'm taking what you believe is a fundamental part of Christianity and attempting to take it down a notch. Hey, why do you think that is? (come on, say the opposite of the obvious, do it, show me how retarded you can be)

It's only a house of cards if you're not willing to give it even the slightest credence (which with your rabid atheism is unfortunately self-admittedly true). That's a great pity. Thousands of years of human culture dismissed in an instant because you're too headstrong (or butt-hurt) to give it a second thought. So much for reason.

Maybe you're not familiar with the 20th century and the clusterfuck of death that surrounded governmental experimentation (of which rejection of religion was a fundamental tenet). Look, I'm happy for you to attempt a no government society where your reason and compassion will lead everyone into quiet nirvana. But you'll be one of the first to be taken advantage of by some cold ruthless cunt who doesn't possess those abilities.

No, I seriously doubt you wish me the best. Your tirade against me demonstrates that. Hopefully you'll realise soon that you're not an Übermensch. And almost everything you now know is wrong (I sincerely hope you know that - it's a fundamental scientific tenet that we are always getting closer to the truth - wiping away the untruths we know - and yes there is research on this).

I do thank you for at least attempting to overcome your own obvious cognitive dissonance in sincerely wishing me peace at the end. It reminds me so much of people who claim to have a religion of peace after their brothers blow some people up. Lol.

Next up. SDGundamX with what he's sure will this time be the final blow as all bow before him with his unassailable reason and compassion that nobody else can possibly challenge.

Bye for a while. I've literally got work now and won't be back for about 28 days. I will be back though. Talk then.

Funny, Christians all dismiss thousands of years of multiple human cultures...(like any that deny or dispute the Christ story), but complain to no end if theirs is disputed or discarded in any way.

You've got to be kidding. The times when the most disgusting experiments were done is the exact same time when religious zealots inserted their "christian" religion into our government. (But certainly not it's teachings)

EDIT: Those cards only look like bricks from one narrow viewpoint. From any other view point it's undeniable that they are just paper thin and can't stand on their own. It's not about not giving them a second thought...it's that no matter how much you examine them they only appear solid from one specific position.

That was a lot of backhanded compliments and snark for someone pretending a nerve wasn't struck.

@harlequinn

Okay, now you're devolving into personal attacks and completely baseless assumptions (ironically something you accused me of earlier). So, I'm just going to wish you the best and move on.

For what it's worth, I don't blame you getting defensive. I understand challenges to your beliefs can be disorienting, especially when they are so deeply held as part of your identity like religious ones are. You seem to think I'm being sarcastic or something, but in all honesty: good luck to you.

Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

Right, I'm back.

Was that it? Was that the best you have? Jesus, I was hoping for something a little better than that. I had high hopes for you indeed.

Care to point out those baseless assumptions?

"I understand challenges to your beliefs can be disorienting"

Fucking lol. Baseless assumptions much? You'd have to know my beliefs (and clear as day you don't) to even start to be a challenge to it. I even gave hints about my beliefs.

Don't be surprised when you blindly attack and make incorrect assumptions about someone that it comes right back at you. Also, keep in mind I love arguing. If that isn't obvious then I don't know what is. I could do this all day.

I don't think you're being sarcastic. I think you're trying to exude some sense of superior reasoning because you abandoned your religion. I think you're projecting your own insecurities onto other people to try to prop up your ego. I think you're angry at religion and are looking for religious people to dump your bile on (and it doesn't matter if they aren't religious - as long as you get to attempt to attack them it's all good to you) and that is pretty shitty of you.

"I'm just going to wish you the best and move on."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Lol, anyway - did you get my point yet? The one about Tradition and Sola Scriptura? It was an important point. I even gave an example of it... I'm waiting with bated breath.

@harlequinn

Dude, you've clearly got some anger issues that need working out. How you can still be this upset a month later about a thread I literally forgot completely about until you resurrected it, I have no idea.

Since you seem hellbent on interpreting everything I say as some atheistic screed you'll probably think I'm being sarcastic. But in all seriousness... you need to talk to somebody about this and it clearly isn't me.

Once again (non-sarcastically) best of luck to you.

Lol, I clearly told you that I'd be away for about a month and I'd reply to your forthcoming reply post (it was obviously forthcoming at the time).

"Anger issues". Lol, good try turning it around there. I'm not the one who jumped into this thread foaming at the mouth. As above - I clearly wrote I'd be back about now.

"upset". Lol! You do know what "lol" means, right? I'm sure you can see it all over my posts. That's what I'm doing. I'm laughing at you.

I'm talking to the only person that matters in this conversation. You.

"So, I'm just going to wish you the best and move on."

Like I wrote, "Yeah, good luck with that." The reason I wrote that is because you're too predictable.

"Once again (non-sarcastically) best of luck to you."

And once again, I'm calling bullshit on that.

BTW - I may be gone for a while again. I'll be back though. Don't spaz out on me again when I come back.