Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Strongpoint]

Nahh, being herero breeds new god-organs.

God's seed can be sent to the destination artificially without doing that nasty thing

[TD1]

God's seed came before non-fleshy vessels capable of distributing it were devised.

[McTraveller]

I can't tell how much of this is honest ignorance versus intentional satire on the way people interpret scriptures.

This disturbs me. I feel like I'm in cognitive decline...

[EuchreJack]

Also, if God is male (Adam was created in his image and when God decided to manifest himself he did that in a male form) isn't it kinda wrong, when you, being a supreme being MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, join your flesh with someone who is not as god-like and misses some divine bodyparts?

You should seek the company of other god-like creations. Being hetero is clearly sinful.

This is inaccurate. Adam wasn't a "man" until after his "rib" was removed to create Eve. Thus "male" is NOT the Divine Image. Pretty sure that means God is a Hermaphrodite.

[martinuzz]

Or a siamese twin, if that rib was Eve-shaped

[hector13]

I can't tell how much of this is honest ignorance versus intentional satire on the way people interpret scriptures.

This disturbs me. I feel like I'm in cognitive decline...

What makes you so sure your interpretation is correct?

[McTraveller]

Well in this case it's because nobody in serious academic history has ever considered "mankind made in the image of God" to refer to Adam/males only, nor do they consider it to mean "a bipedal mostly hairless mammal."

But lots of vocal ill-informed people, who don't know the difference between the literary styles of the Bible (allegory, history, poetry, letters, parables, apocalyptic, etc.), or basic academic rules of how to interpret ancient literature, make all kinds of...questionable statements. Many of which show up on internet forums as Statements of Unfounded Certainty.

But in this thread, which has a notable Aspect of Humor... well I can't tell...

[hector13]

Considering that throughout history most religions have not allowed women in positions of authority within them, and some still don’t, and even within those that do there’s significant enough “legacy” discontent that publicly speaking out about women in these positions is not wholly frowned upon, it’s not the biggest leap in the world to make that when the people who wrote the book say “man” they mean “men”.

Most people don’t have academic levels of analytical ability, either, including the vast majority of people who are actually preaching from the book, so the “ill-informed” are also the ones teaching from it.

What does it matter anyway? The way you (mis)interpret it isn’t going to be affected by the way someone else (mis)interprets it. That’s why there are so many different brands of Christianity.

There’s no point in being offended by it either. If you’re right, you end up in paradise and they don’t. The ultimate fuck you, surely?

[McTraveller]

Why would I want anyone to be "screwed" in this life or the next? That would bring me no joy. (Although I admit, I feel selfish pleasure when I see a traffic offender get pulled over. So I'm not really as good as I seem on TV.)

[Strongpoint]

I can't tell how much of this is honest ignorance versus intentional satire on the way people interpret scriptures.

This disturbs me. I feel like I'm in cognitive decline...

It is plain simple mockery. I could go further and start quote-mining the Bible as all Christians do to some extent but it is too much work.

Implying that Jesus's words about looking at women with lust mean that a proper Christian should be a homosexual is far less absurd and context-ignoring than, for example, the mainstream nonsense that the creator of the universe magically fucked a random monkey (aka his mother in a weird act of recursive incest) to give birth to himself basing it on some vague Jesus's claims present only in Jhon.

BTW, Why do three other gospels omit such a MINOR detail of Jesus claiming to be the god of Abraham?

[MaxTheFox]

I think it's funny.

Nothing anyone ever says here-- or anywhere for what matter-- will seriously affect my beliefs so to me it's a good laugh.

[TD1]

In a world before Christ, such a man as you would make a wonderful Jew.

The same man, after Christ, even having witnessed all the portents and signs of the new testament, would clutch his scrolls, glare, and deny himself entry to heaven.

[Strongpoint]

In a world before Christ, such a man as you would make a wonderful Jew.

The same man, after Christ, even having witnessed all the portents and signs of the new testament, would clutch his scrolls, glare, and deny himself entry to heaven.

I am confused. Who are you addressing?

[martinuzz]

I think he is adressing Max, because if all the jews of that age would have thought "Nothing anyone ever says here-- or anywhere for what matter-- will seriously affect my beliefs so to me it's a good laugh", christianity would never have existed.

Christianity only exists because the believers allowed their beliefs to be affected by what someone (Jesus) said.

[Frumple]

Well, what other people said he said, as agreed upon by various organizational consensuses over the centuries, anyway.

Any case, christianity as it exists today only exists because of a lot of things that have very, very little to do with the scripture or its believers, heh. Lot of it doesn't even have anything to do with the religion itself, per se, save insofar as it was used as a sometimes genocidal bludgeon against various governments' designated punching bags.

That's religion for yeh, tho'. You'd think there'd be at least one major one that didn't have that somewhere in their history, but... not as far as I'm aware. Frikkin' jainism, whose primary teaching is nonviolence and the reduction of harm, even had a period where they were the major religion in an expansionist state