Another reading today from Christianity's Holy book, this time from the New Testament -- the one that brought a "new covenant" to the world after the Old Testament's reign of blood. Reading now from Matthew:
More here in a similar vein from the New Testament.
As they say, know your Bible. [Ref: Russell's Teapot]
15 comments:
Just one example of incompentance by the skeptics bible.
"Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30"
He says that IF your right hand causes you to sin, to cut it off. This is not meant to be literal, because merely having a right hand is unlikely to cause you to sin. However if your right hand did cause you to sin I don't see much wrong with cutting it off.
This is not meant to be literal
Ahhh the mating call of the Christian apologist.
However if your right hand did cause you to sin I don't see much wrong with cutting it off.
'Cos hey, that would be easier than admitting that you caused yourself to "sin". Although Evil Dead did have that great scene with the evil possessed hand...
me saying that it is not meant to be literal doesnt mean that it doesnt stand up literally.
The word "IF" does not imply that the following is necessarily realistic. but if it were realistic, it could be taken literally.
Its like if someone says "IF Austrailia invaded new zealand I would assasinate Kevin Rudd"
Now that is might be an unrealistic thing to say but you wouldn't say that the speaker is evil cos he wants to kill Kevin Rudd.
while this comment is ok if taken literally, the speaker may be talking philosophically that if you are fighting in self defense, it is ok/advantagous to assassinate the enemy leader.
Never a good idea to quote the Bible out of context. The passage goes on to say...
"37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."
which shows that the preceeding verses are metaphorical.
Pathetic. I'm an atheist, but get sick of this comparison between modern Christianity and Islam. Christianity's reformed, Islam has not. Jehovah Witnesses are annoying, but they don't seek to stone me because I'm gay. Christian nutjobs in the US have killed seven abortion doctors over the last TWENTY YEARS, while Muslim nutjobs brutalise, torture or murder dozens, if not hundreds, EVERY DAY in many parts of the globe.
Point is, Red, that both Holy books are barbaric, no matter how much modern Christians like to spin the barbarism in their particular book of fairy stories as 'metaphorical.'
In point of fact, when it comes to choosing between Holy Books, it's just possible that the Koran is the more pacific of the two. See : here , for example, where the author concludes that it really depends how you measure the killing.
"A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written. The award would go to one or the other, for neither has any close competitors. It is frightening to think that more than half of the world's population believes in one or the other."
Amen to that, brother.
PC - The difference for me (also an atheist) is that the Koran openly and repeatedly calls for killing Jews and Christians.
While both books have elements of violence, I hardly see how anyone can compare the two, especially in light of where the two religions stand in the world today. As Iseered says, one is reformed, the other has a long way to go. Frankly, and in light of your penchant for (rightly) condemning Islamofascists and their wanton slaughter of people around the world in the name of Allah, these posts have surprised me.
It's entirely possible to make a case
to suit any point of view by selectively quoting the Bible.
How about "honour thy father and thy mother' or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or an eye for an eye" (which merely calls for proportional punishment)?
And as Iseered points out, Christianity reformed. Islam didn't.
The day that Christian Fundies fly planes into tall buildings or murder thousands in attacks justified by the paragraphs outlined in the blog post then I'll take note. Otherwise I'll still worry more about the Islamists than Christians.
Brian Smaller
Atheist.
You have got to be kidding. That is the most puerile, intellectually dishonest post I have read in a long long time. You have shamed yourself. Surely you can do better than that.
Oh, I apologise. I have actually demeaned children by suggesting the post was puerile. Even a child who took the time and trouble actually to read the text would realise instantly the dishonesty of your comments.
Well then, the religos are out making up excuses and pretending to be shocked again.
Hey, this shit was said by your founder. It's in your special infallible book. He said it.. You either believe in it or you don't. No excuses.
Fact is, religion contains much evil and much of stupidity besides. That Christians have chosen to foresake most of the barbaric practices and customs of their religion is no defense of the religion itself. It is the civilising influences of non-religious anti-Christian philosophies that have gradually improved the behaviours and practices of "Christians" over generations. Prior to that Christianity was every bit as barbaric and violent in practice as is Islam today. That it is likely that Islamics will eventually become civilised (and that many already are) is no defense of Islam. As with Christianity, it is as a the result of the abandonment of the religious ideas that will lead to people being able to live better lives.
Get over yourselves and kick all the religo mumbo jumbo into touch. It's no damn good.
LGM
Hey, LGM, your blind cant and prejudice is unbecoming a civilised man.
We Christians do not resile one inch from the words of our Lord. What we do resile from is irrational prejudice evinced by those who react with extreme fundamentalist bias.
If you are at all interested in reasoning through the facts, work through the data laid out, step by step for the slow of heart in my post on the topic: http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/05/meditation-on-text-of-week.html
If not, then you are welcome to your fundamentalist unbelieving prejudices. Just don't ask or expect Christians to share them.
JT
comrade mot said: The word "IF" does not imply that the following is necessarily realistic. but if it were realistic, it could be taken literally.
Sure...in English! The question is how is it worded in Greek or Latin, where there's a clear grammatical difference between an "if" that's intended to be "realistic" and one that isn't?
I looked it up (Matt.18:9):
Εἰ δὲ ἡ χείρ σου ἢ ὁ πούς σου σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ· καλόν σοί ἐστιν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν κυλλὸν ἢ χωλόν, ἢ δύο χεῖρας ἢ δύο πόδας ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον.
si autem manus tua vel pes tuus scandalizat te abscide eum et proice abs te bonum tibi est ad vitam ingredi debilem vel clodum quam duas manus vel duos pedes habentem mitti in ignem aeternum
The Greek has "εἰ ... σκανδαλίζει" - a simple present indicative protasis, rather than a counterfactual imperfect or aorist; and the Latin "si ... scandalizat", an indicative not a subjunctive. I.e., these are "realistic" ifs.
Christianity is naturally violent and fundamentalism just like the Abrahamic twin islam is. Fundamentally there is no difference, and they all believe in the same abrahamic fairy tales.
Post a Comment