handelsskole

Hm..What about the second coming then...

Emperor of the Universe

Metacrock:

First, it should be noted that if there is a God, odds are Christinsanity's version of him is straight up blasphemy. You make God out to be a complete idiot: why could he not say what he means, and mean what he says? Why use metaphor, mythology, this or that criterion, etc. instead of being clear? Do you realize how inferior God apparently is to so many humans who are able to write novels, instruction manuals, text books, magazines, etc., and have it be easily understood by the vast majority of all its readers? Yet God, who created the entire universe, cannot even do this? Then God, if he exists, is a complete idiot.
No, you don't get away that easily. There is NOTHING in the flood story to indicate its a mere mythological parable, and EVERYTHING indicates the opposite. Virtually all Jews considered it literal. The Bible itself includes Noah in geneologies, and his specific children. Jesus himself said the flood happened. And there is not a thing in its written context to indicate a fake story meant to teach a lesson rather than a literal, allegedly historical account of an event. Just because you have confessed that your holy book ripped off stories from surrounding cultures, doesn't get you off the hook. Not only does it prove how untrustworthy Bible authors are, because they plagiarized other, heathen religions for theirs, but it doesn't work for other dubious Bible claims. For example, what would you say to other Bible flaws, like the alleged exodus (which would have left thousands of artefacts at the bottom of the Nile. To date, no evidence of the supposed event has been found); or Joshua's stopping the sun (would have caused a world wide eclipse, but there is no evidence of such)?
BECAUSE THATS WHAT THE CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE PASSAGES IN QUESTION SO OBVIOUSLY INDICATE! Find me some historical accuracies in the Bible. Then specifically explain how the inacuracies (such as those I spoke about above) are different enough in context to warrant their being taken as mythology. You cannot do it. Therefore the false passages were meant to be taken literally, but are still false. Which means the Bible has false claims, which means it is not trustworthy. You are not going to get away by claiming everything that you don't like is mythology or metaphor.
Explain how it does this.
No, the disagreement is far and wide. Christians spent at least a thousand years killing all who opposed them. Then they found out that was wrong. They used to think the solar system was geocentric. Then they found out it was wrong. Slavery, sexism, racism, imperialism, child abuse, witch hunts, etc., all this was supported by the same criterion Nomad put forth. Now its not.

Your disagreements are anything but trivial.
Hardly. You still have seventh day adventists, mormons, capitalist christians, communist christians, moderate christians, fundamentalists, bible literalists, liberal christians, catholics, protestants, etc. You are just as divided now as you ever have been.

Nomad:
Yeah, so you've said. To date, these criterion still don't work, and never have.
See above. To say the disagreements in Christinsanity are 'trivial' (or something to that equation), and that it is still a united, coherent doctrine is like saying the disagreements between Republican politics and Democrat politics are 'trivial', and therefore, they are united as one coherent political force.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ahhh, the age old dodge. It's all you need to know how to live your life and a complete, factual account of our creation, purpose and entire existence up until the point when someone starts questioning the logic and pointing out the contradictions and deconstructing the glaring flaws and then it all becomes metaphorical, doesn't it Meta?

Astounding, ins't it? The amazing flip-flopping cult mythology! Step right up!

No, really? Well how nice of you to pretend that mustard is the only problem with the book and attempt (in so doing) to equate it all and just childishly dismiss every single thing that proves the bible is nothing more than quaint, ancient folklore mythology.

Not to mention the fact that you are dead wrong in your assessment. The book is not a "serious text" about our cosmic origins, it is a mythology about our earthly origins. We were made here, from dirt and ribs and it is here that we live and breathe and it is here that Jesus allegedly came to and Satan was banished to (walking up and down within it) and every single story/parable contained within the bible is designed to provide lessons about living your life so that you can be saved after you're dead.

The book is geared entirely toward earthly existence with nothing more than abstractions concerning the after life (with the exception of the clinically insane hallucinations the author of Revelations somehow got away with--must have been a Pope's lover).

All of which, of course, is irrelevant. Either the book is a factual account of literal creatures with the powers ascribed to them fully intact--such as omniscience--or it's fiction. If the characters in that text get basic elements of science, biology, and physical environment factually incorrect, then that is evidence of fraud (if non-fiction) and pointlessness (if fiction).

You asserting that Jesus getting the size of the mustard seed wrong being unimportant is, therefore, evidence of fiction, for if a literal, omniscient God--whether fully man, whatever the fuck that means, or not--stated that the mustard seed (as just one example and not to be misconstrued as the only example the way you disingenuously attempted to do, Meta) was the smallest seed among all seeds, then he's wrong. End of story.

For you to apologize for such an error by claiming he meant something other than what he stated (it was the smallest in their experience) is to prove fraud.

Indeed, the entire concept of apologetics conclusively proves fraud, so we can throw out the mustard seed and the sun orbiting the earth and the irrefutable fact that no dead man has ever resurrected from the grave, let alone the countless ones claimed to have resurrected in various ancient mythologies, etc., etc., etc.

You are taking proof of mythology and/or fraud to be evidence for apologetics, making apologetics more important and (ridiculously) more accurate than the alleged goddamned words coming directly out of these character's mouths!

This fact alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the lies of your cult. The mustard seed was just one example. As you know perfectly well, there are hundreds more that are never addressed by cult members without reliance upon apologetics, which only serves to further prove the fraud.

Look at it this way. Imagine you and I are gardeners, conversant in botany. I hear of some guy alleged to be God, the omniscient creator of all the universe, and I convince you to go with me to hear him speak and this is what we hear him say:
Instantly we would know this guy has no idea what he's talking about. It is not the least of all seeds nor could it be classified as the greatest among the herbs since that has no qualitative meaning, it doesn't grow into a tree and there are no branches for birds to "lodge" in.

Since we know he's dead wrong on at least three qualitative points in his own analogy, why in the world would we think he is what others (and himself, according to "John") allege him to be?

Let's make it even simpler. Jesus claims to be the greatest veterinarian, with the most complete knowledge on the entire globe regarding animals. We go to his symposium on the care and feeding of house pets, and he says:
Now, we may be able to sluff off some of the statements as nothing more than hyperbole for the sake of analogy, but the antlers thing is just plain wrong and a house cat will never grow to be the largest feline on the planet and the fact that this supposed expert doesn't recognize what he's saying is preposterous, regardless of his intent, well, it just demonstrates that the guy clearly knows nothing about the topic he allegedly is an expert in.

The second he said such obvious errors is the second we leave the auditorium.

You guys, on the other hand (I'll call you cat apologists) take such blatant evidence of fraud, refuse to recognize the fraud and proceed to spend your entire lives if necessary marginalizing every single word this guy uttered so that you can force his obvious ignorance 180 degrees around into evidence for his unquestionable, superior expertise.

That or you do as you attempted here and claim that the guy was talking more about the overall concept of proper nutrition and care and feeding in general and therefore the trivial details of what he did or did not get wrong in an analogy in the heat of the moment are irrelevant. A classic, meaningless apologetic dodge, I should add.

Both of which serve only to prove one thing: you will go to any length to support your denial of the truth.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]