pope fiction

The force doesn't exist. Which can also be said about a lot of the things written in the bible. And, I was pertaining to the way you used the analogy, it was just a bad one.

Um, yeah! Duh! It is my personal reaction to the book. Very good!

Oh, so it was in my response, so it must be my only reason. Ok, I see your logic (or lack thereof) there.

That's rediculous, spin! Are you hearing yourself? If I read it for a reason not on your list, does that mean I wasn't inclined to read it? I had different reasons for reading it while a Catholic than after the agnostic/atheist transition. After doing some of my own hard thinking for a while, I decided to pick it up again (being more mature and more educated at that point than I was while Catholic) and see what it was really about. I believe that constitutes me being inclined to read it, wouldn't you?

Incorrectly labeling me is hardly a way to make sense of what I say.

Do you read what I type? I'll go through it again for you, so try to soak it in this time. The fair and unbiased chance I gave the bible involved me reading it and living by it as a Catholic for 16 years, and reading it with an open mind during my skeptic/agnostic transition. Living by it for 16 years is chance enough, yet I read it again with an utmost degree of patience with an open/unbiased mind after denouncing my faith.

So, it appears your assumption was indeed wrong. I not only rejected christianity, but also the bible, not as a result of denouncing Catholocism.

Ah, so that's why you attack our reasons with such condescension without any convincing points.

PF

spin

OK, so one has to avoid analogies with you because you have difficulties with them. And claiming that an analogy is bad without dealing with what its comparison is is rather meaningless.

I needed to point it out with crayons for you.

One's personal reaction is of no value in arguing the topic.

I doubt that.

The proposition that you are responding to is that when one has biases in confronting material, those biases will affect one's judgment in dealing with thwe material. What the motivation was that you might read it will not necessarily change any indisposition you may have had.

I merely said, "Baby and bathwater syndrome." You are the one who has rejected the bible as of no use and left your faith around the same time. Knowing the contents of the bible relatively well, I see you, who have given little demonstration of such a knowledge, rejecting the bible's merit (which are on various levels) without much reason.

You continue to push this line of reasoning. How can a believer give a fair and unbiased chance to a book that is an underpinning of their faith??

The bible is not a book which gives up its contents to the casual reader, even one who has read it for decades.

You have not made any case for rejecting the bible. You merely made this statement:

If we come to common ground and say it's merely an ancient artifact, then anyone of any faith could read it. However, the nature of it suggests ways to live, people to worship etc. It's not just a book full of fairy tales and metaphors, it's a book that suggests a way of life. In this sense, I don't believe it to be good literature. I don't mind reading about some metaphorical fairy tales, but not if it's trying to get me to change my belief system throughout the entire book. Not that I'm closed minded to other ways of life and other beliefs, but I've already given that lifestyle a chance and didn't benefit from it.

The major cause of problem for you in this statement is that the bible is "trying to get me to change my belief system throughout the entire book", which in itself is not true, but it reflects why you dismiss the bible, because of its belief system, a belief system which you have rejected. This is the baby with the bathwater. Pure and simple.

Your reaction shows that you came into the thread under a misapprehension that I thought the bible was crap. That misapprehension should help you to understand part of the difficulty we have been having.

And your points for your dismissal of the bible are extremely few and far between.


spin

Valdemar

Hahaha! That's funny! You obviously contradict yourself in the same sentence. I'm afraid you are incapable of being nice, and certainly incapable of arguing logically.

I get it. You are incapable of answering simple questions. By the way, the smiley face doesn't suit you.

So, where was I "whinging"? Does this go along with your "litriture"?

Here is what you said:

Which was a direct attack on my level of education. So I responded by indicating that I have some authority, due to my "expensive toilet paper." None of which is on topic.

Oh, but I did deal with the contention that the Bible is crap. It was you who failed to respond substantially to my question! You really are unbelievable!

Here was my original paragraph:

And here's how you responded:

That is how you respond to me in my VERY FIRST POST on the topic. You have yet to address this, and you have the gall to berate me for not addressing your poem! I'll stop "whinging" when you stop being a hypocrite.

No, you're a little better than that. You got your degree out of a Cracker Jack's box.

You're kidding, right? Now that really is dumb. Ask a Jew or Christian that same question.
I'll answer your questions -- AND analyze your poem -- as soon as you start answering mine and stop assuming that they're rhetorical.

Valdemar

You are incorrect, PF. It wasn't a bad analogy, just an irrelevant one. Maybe if he referred to the Bhagvat Gita he would have had something to say.

Good point, PF. It's amazing that spin dismisses your reasons for reading the Bible, instead boiling it down to HIS reasons : "be that for sociology, anthropology, literary merit, history, etc." As if this somehow negates the way you approached the Bible.

But this is spin's m.o. I like what he says here:

And this is what he says to me:

and what he says to you:

I have a similar experience, except from a Protestant angle. It's amazing that spin doesn't understand that to become Atheists, many of us do -- for the first time ever -- read it with an unbiased mind. That's what helps in the deconversion! But, according to him, you need to look at it historically etc. to be unbiased!

It's hard to take spin seriously when he fails to address our points first! His pattern is obvious. We make a point, he calls us stupid for our points without directly addressing them; he makes his own points, then calls us stupid when we, rightfully, ask for him to get back on-topic and address our original points.

pope fiction

No, one has to be more careful in using analogies with me, since I'm very analytical.

I was done drawing with crayons in 1st grade, I don't know about you. The fact that it's my personal view doesn't mean shit. You have yours, I have mine. I explained some reasons for my view, as you've attempted to do the same.

It is if it's supported. See, since this thread is about opinions, personal reactions are what we're focusing on. Get in the game.

I thought you said you didn't know me? It's called sarcasm. I was criticizing your lack of logic in your assumption that I had only one reason that the bible was crap.



Everybody starts with the same disposition towards the bible. I read it while strong in faith, and unbiased during my transition.

You're assuming wrong reasons that I left my faith and rejected the bible around the same time (within about 2 years). One isn't directly linked to the other. Leaving my faith allowed me to read it with a different mindset, leaving the bias behind. You can't say that I was biased, you really can't. You're in no position to say that, so I don't ever want to hear you say that again. I wanted to know the truth, no matter what it was, so I read without presuming anything.



You can't split up my argument like that and attack it as if it were two different points like that. You're the most fallacious poster I've ever argued with, contradulations.

There's a fasle statement if I've ever seen one. How can you say that? So first you say you can't read it unbiased if you're a person of faith, now you say the bible doesn't give up its contents to the casual reader? You're a hypocrite, you know that? You're terrible. You are by far the least organized poster on this board. Take a few weeks off, get your ideas straight, gather your arguments and organize yourself, then come back when you're ready. Right now, you're just pissing people off.

Among other reasons. I believe my reasons qualify as a case for rejecting the bible. Face it, spin. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean my opinion is wrong!

That is my conclusion, not necessarily a reason. I am no longer a man of faith, so I reject the bible because it requires faith to take in the stories. That isn't why it's crap. You're obviously wrong about that baby and bathwater BS, so drop it. Wanna start with labeling? We can play that game, but not here.


No, it was sarcasm. I'm not misapprehending anything. You're way too simple minded for me to misapprehend. The difficulty is rooted not with an error, it's plain and simple, you hate to loose, and you can't stand to be disagreed with.

Right. Right. Whatever. I'm done with you. You're rediculous. It's like arguing with a brick wall. Only the wall probably wouldn't insult me in the process. Get a clue [refrained yet again, for purity of this thread].

PF

spin

Yeah, so I've noticed.

You got it: it doesn't mean shit. It is irrelevant to the topic. Yet it is central to you comments on it.


Doh. Then it is irrelevant that it's a personal view.

That's your problem: it's not about opinions. It's about culture.

That you need to write this waffle 1) underlines my doubt, 2) misses my response to your ham-handed attempt at sarcasm, and 3) misses what I was stating my doubts over. You're a three time loser.

False assumption.

It doesn't really matter how much you wriggle around the problem. You have plainly indicated that "unbiased" you weren't. Leaving the religion that bases its tenets on the book doesn't give you much chance to shed your biases at all.

You conveniently forgot all of what you assumed before and your reactions as to leaving the religion.

You didn't answer the question, you just made an bald assertion.
The bible is not a book which gives up its contents to the casual reader, even one who has read it for decades
Right now you're just showing that you are clueless with regard to what is actually in the bible. What do you know about the ancient cultures behind it? Apparently zippo. What do you know about the languages used in it? Apparently zippo. What do you know about the literary tools of ancient cultures and how they were used in the bible? Apparently zippo. What do you know about the comparative religious, mythological, sociological and anthropological studies done on the text? Apparently zippo. You are apparently just a naive reader who thinks they can skim along the surface of the text and miraculously understand what is going on. I'm impressed.

We are talking about whether the bible is crap, not your reasons for rejecting the bible. You have hardly begun to scratch the surface of the topic before you.

As one can "take in" the stories without "faith", your assertion is baseless.

No shit? Hey, sarcasm! I'd never have guessed. But then, I suppose only one can play at the game at one time, right? Doh.

How thoughtful of you with your restraint, Pope Fiction.

To conclude that the bible is crap, beyond the level of personal reaction (which is of little use to us here), one has to do more than show little understanding of the bible.


spin

(And sorry to gripe about your orthography, but you have spelt "ridiculous" wrong a few times now. If you are going to limply insult somebody, you should at least spell the insult correctly.)

spin

You should note the word "that". And I'm quite often nice Valdemar.

I have answered your questions. I demonstrated them. That's why I talked of rhetorical questions: you already knew the answers and they were put for effect. Your statement "You are incapable of answering simple questions" has already been cotradicted. The smiley was about your questions.

This is your whinge:

Let's see, you resort to ad hominem attacks in your original response to me, you resort to ad hominem attacks now, and you wonder why I don't respond to what you're talking about? For a man who clearly has such a high opinion of his litrary abilities and edjication, wouldn't you say that's dumb? Really dumb?

Sorry, not on your education, just on what you were saying. You'll remember the "Idea, Form, Idiom, Struture, Craft, and Surface", the nice compartmentalisation of the necessary elements for one to remember when in an Eng. Lit. exam. Pity we weren't dealing with Eng. Lit.

I can understand someone with a "bachelor's degree in English" who has shown no understanding of the literature under question saying this.

Sounds right.

Not my poem, unfortunately.

Your problem is the implied assumption here: "But the artform of the Bible is a combination of all these things, don't you agree?" The word "form" in "artform" should help you along a little. You can find good poets without much content and bad poets with lots of content. Shelley for example fluctuated between the two. When studying literature, it is the form which makes it literature, which separates it from good journalism or sage prose.

Did you have something to say that was not non sequitur?

Surely someone with a "bachelor's degree in English" could come up with something a little more creative?

They can have their opinions, but what relevance are they to this discussion? In the bible we have people trying to make sense of the world and explain why things are the way they are, show their devotion to their religion, record history and traditions, harangue people, comfort people, express political concerns, impose ideas, and very many other things. The bible is a collection of diverse documents and one cannot assume coherence. It must be demonstrated. So, no, I'm not kidding. Do your work or continue waffling.

As I have already answered your questions, I'll wait for you to hold to your word.


spin

spin

It wasn't a wonderful analogy, but neither was it irrelevant:

Many of Hollywood's films come out with sublimated religious, political and social content. Star Wars, with its good and evil scenario, has xianity metaphorized as the force, and the pawns of evil trying to undermine the good of the force. When the film came out there were pseudo-serious discussions as to the validity of the metaphor.

Don't you get sick of all the good versus evil scenarios that crop up? The effect is that the world is divided into two camps, the good (that's us) and the bas (that's them). This simplistic indoctrination is poured out of a television near (or in front of) you. Lots of mindless films that I enjoy also embed this dichotomy of right and wrong. This is hokey content. You can happily overlook it, when you are aware of it, and take in the entertainment. Others get angry and refuse to watch such films to avoid such content, but they don't have very many films to watch in doing so.

Instead of simple acceptance or rejection, one needs a "crap detector" (c/o Neil Postman) in order to sift through things and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is on one level that I have been asking in this thread. But the literature we've been talking around is unfortunately arcane. It is not easy to penetrate because of the lack of acquaintance we have of the cultural baggage necessary to understand it. One cannot expect to be able to make informed comments without a good grasp of that baggage.


spin

Valdemar

Spin, you're obviously post-whoring since you refuse to address my questions. But I see what really has bothered you in my last few posts: my level of education.

This will really chap your ass: I have two more degrees AND I speak three languages.

Since this post is off-topic and also post-whoring, a la spin, I end my "discussion" of why the Bible is crap by analyzing spin's (excuse me, Gerard Manley Hopkins) poem: to prove once and for all that content IS important.

Notice how ONE small change in content affects the entire poem. Let's see how "crap" rolls off your tongue, spin, as you read the poem. It ties in nicely wtih "smeared" and "man's smell" don't you think? Change it to "shit," spin, and see how THAT rolls off your tongue.

Valdemar, over and out.

pope fiction

Actually, it is relevant to the topic. It's my opinion on the topic.

We're talking about personal views here. Your view is that the bible isn't crap. You see?

It's about our opinions on culture and cultural artifacts. Where have you been?

The fact that your wrote this bullshit tells me 1) you don't know what sarcasm is, 2) you can't stand losing, 3) you don't read and understand what I type. You're a pathetic, worthless [edited by pope fiction] threefold.

Is it? Only if you've been spoon fed your "beliefs" long before you ever pick up a bible.

You're missing the point, reading the bible unbiased is part of what helped me leave the religion. If my case isn't fair and unbiased, then there doesn't exist such a chance.

I'm convinced you that you either don't read what I type or don't comprehend it cumulatively.

Because the question was irrelevant. You can't split up my argument in two parts and criticize them independently; the before and after is point of the argument. That's a straw man fallacy and you know it. Get a clue.

I know a little more than zippo. You're so despirate now that you're falling back on doubting if I've even read the bible. You've got nothing. I don't have to prove to you that I read the bible by paraphrasing exerpts for you. You either trust that I have, or give up this argument right now.

We are talking about both. And I believe I've taken a giant gouge out, how more in depth do I have to get? You already have my opinion and I've tried defending it, but you're just too clueless so it's getting nowhere.

If that is true, then so is yours. Think about it, hypocrite.

Wait, is that sarcasm? Whoa.

Believe me, I'm trying.

How did I show little understanding of the bible? Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I don't understand it. Hmmm...sounds like a little fallcious straw man again. Then again, you're no stranger to fallacies, are you?

Now you're just despirate. Ok, I'm not an english major. I'm a fucking engineer; you get the point of the word, move on.

Instead of this nit-picking fallacious crap, try plainly stating why you think that my opinion against the bible is wrong. If you think I have come to a false conclusion, tell me what arguments are erroneous, and why. I'd be glad to continue, but we have to clean up the act a little bit.

PF