Incestuous bible?

Our points are mutually exclusive, so no, yours doesn't.

 

well it does if not more so.

when people bash religion and say "religion" the majority of people are speaking of Christianity and we all know this unless you are being pedantic.
the average religion basher knows very little about any other religions, those little ones that don't make a fuss or the different denominations that hold alternative views to that of the main banner they are under.

yes it may be hypocritical of those people for doing so but their posts are not unjust. religions (primarily Christianity but not all) gets so much leeway to do and talk utter unfounded, fact fighting, lie spreading, dumbing down the population, hate spreading rubbish and people are meant to not be able to comment just because it's a "belief" that thousands of like minded idiots people share.

and i'm sorry but if a belief spreads on purpose teachings against free-speech, the gain of knowledge, pro-choice, gay marriage, personal opinions, science, medicine, other religions, intelligence and so on it whether hypocritical or not is deserving of a bit of bashing.

not only that but some of it is not hypocrisy. yes if you generalize and bash someone for having a belief in god then it can be seen as hypocrisy but if the bashing is at the ghastly acts and teachings that are still done by that religion in general then it's not because it bashes the actions of those people not the primary belief they hold.

religion in general is not deserving of respect nor is it exempt from it just because it's a belief, you gain respect by your actions in this world not the belief you hold.

is your problem when people mean Christianity and Islam they say religion, are you that pedantic that people need to specify the religion/denomination they mean when a comment is made to please you.

also if you had not noticed that the thread is about Christian theology so we can safely assume that when some one says religion here that they mean Christianity.

 

What are you talking about? Hypr didn't even post in this thread.

 

You're missing my point. None of the listed negative consequences of religion hold any water outside of your own misguided generalisation.

In regards to your assertion that I'm being pedantic: perhaps you misread what I said earlier. The variations between denominations and sects within a given religion can be as drastic as the variations between religions themselves. Therefore, specifying whichever religion/s you're referring to makes no difference as these variations still debunk your generalisation.

But fine, let's limit this discussion to Christianity, for simplicity's sake. You say that it's a hate-spreading, anti-intellectual lie. However, these claims are your beliefs, which ultimately have no bearing on the fact of the matter. I can assure you that there are plenty of intelligent adherents for every religion, and that most if not all major religions advocate tolerance, equality and open-mindedness, rather than the hate that you claim they teach.

I admit that some ultra-right-wing Christians may be lost in their own closed-minded legalism when it comes to matters such as the ones you've listed, but if you think that these people speak for the majority or represent the core teachings of their religion then you're again guilty of a hasty generalisation fallacy. Radical elements such as these are to be expected in damn near any group, be it religious or secular.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that being religious denotes being worthy of respect.

 

they do hold water as outside my misguided generalisation genius in the real world these consequences can be observed and if you don't see them your blind or one of these people.

these claims are not my beliefs as
A. i don't believe it i know it thus not a belief
B. again not my opinion but that of the bashers i am defending
C. again i have quite clearly pointed out that they are generalisations and explained why and at what they are made.

your argument is pointless because
1. i don't care for those against or for religion
2. i agree with you as i have many times shot down atheists for bash religions being hypocritical and having little knowledge about what they are talking about so to say it's my misguided generalisation is your own misguided generalisation.

i wanted a good debate with you but your not really giving one as i don't think you even comprehend what i'm saying nor do you actually understand my level of knowledge on Christianity (it's my obsession).

my basic point is your original statement is a bit pointless as those that are generally bashed are those that are deserving of a bit of bashing and it is the actions of those people that is bashed not the base of their belief.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when bashing people they are generally commenting on those denominations of people that cause the issues. no one means the nice little old lady baking cake for church when they say these things. so to argue that people are being hypocritical for saying what they are saying is unnecessary.

not only that but up until you made that statement no one had actually bashed religion so again pointless.

and it is completely true that there are contradictions in the bible to which i gave a good explanation to that some text is compromises in belief as the original denominations split. the other reasons for this is that over the years words have been changed, the bible is a compilation of many different stories written be many different men, some text was created for political reasons i can go on but i won't and that if we really want to go in to it deeper we can argue that all current denominations and the bible don't actually follow Jesus's teachings.

 

Point missed again. PROTIP: if your argument contains a logical fallacy, it is null and void.

This is what's called the cherry-picking fallacy, which is where you pick and choose individual cases and data to support your position while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

A. You believe you know it, therefore it is a belief.
B. Never in this discussion were those claims presented as anybody's but yours.
C. And again, the generalisation fallacy voids your argument.

1. Irrelevant thought-terminating cliche.
2. Now I'm not even sure if you know what a generalisation is.

No, I understand what you're saying: "religion is evil for x reasons and therefore is deserving of bashing". As I said in the third and fourth paragraphs of my previous post, those reasons do not apply consistently to any given religion, denomination or adherent. This is why your generalisation voids your argument.

There's no way I could have any idea what your knowledge of Christianity entails, but if this "knowledge" is that "religion is evil for x reasons", then it's nothing more than a biased view that cannot be presented as objective fact as you have done. Moreover, very few religious discussions actually contain any semblance of fact, given the subjectivity of personal beliefs.

Then by all means, bash those people. Bashing religious people or religion itself because of the overzealous elements that I said earlier could be found in many organisations is an association fallacy.

Tsk tsk tsk, there's that word again.

Obviously you've got a different idea of what constitutes "religion bashing". Besides, it can happen outside of this thread, y'know.

Biblical text itself isn't "compromised"; different denominations simply have different interpretations. It's true that the meaning of words may have changed, which is why many religious teachers use the direct translation from the original language in order to better explain the perceived meaning of a particular scriptural passage.

You can (try to) argue that no denominations nor the Bible itself follow Jesus' teachings, but that doesn't make any sense to me; the Bible is the source of these teachings, after all. The rest is, as I said, a matter of interpretation.

Of course, that's not to say there aren't contradictions, but the only one I can think of that doesn't require interpretation is rather fitting for this discussion.
[quote author='Proverbs 26']
4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.

5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.
[/quote]

 

1. Adam and Eve were supposedly the first people on earth but that doesn't mean that they were the /only/ people on earth. And supposing that they really where the only people on earth, incest would be a necessity for posterity. And again, if they were the only people on earth, why would you hold them accountable for incest if they had no idea that it was wrong, considering there were no moral norms before their time?

2. There are other instances of incest in the bible, but with Lot's case (the guy you're talking about), it wasn't his intention to sleep with his daughters. His daughters thought that they were the only people on earth after Sodom was destroyed so they got Lot drunk and slept with him to continue mankind. Eventually, with the Mosaic Law, incest came to be viewed as something sinful. My point is that society's morals change. Just as slavery used to be considered acceptable, having sex with prepubescent girls was the norm and homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, incest used to be considered acceptable (for some, it was even favorable especially to royalty who married within their families to retain power, like Cleopatra of Egypt and Leonidas of Sparta). Yeah, we know now that incest is wrong from a biological perspective but that doesn't mean that we have to judge other cultures by our own culture's standards.



btw, I'm agnostic so don't go OMG BIBLE THUMPERRR on me. I used to be a Christian but stopped believing 3 years ago. I do find some things in the bible disturbing, but incest in the Old Testament is not one of those. :/

 

@tehuber1337

first off as you will most likly arrgue with me just because you think i'm an athiest bashing you i'm not i'm agnostic, i don't deny anything or believe in anything unless there is sufficient knowledge to say that it is not my (blind) belief but my understanding.

there is no point in discussing this with you as you keep arguing the same pointless point, i never said it was evil (that's your words not mine i only mentioned what it advocates) and i quite clearly stated that certain statements that are made by people are not intended to all believers but your still trying to point out that i'm saying this.

again i say i was defending those bashers because you said.

"Y'know, I find it ironic that the majority of internet-goers are staunch advocates of things like freedom of speech, pro-choice, gay marriage and so on, yet they hate on religion and the freedom to believe what you want."

and i was explaining that people "bash" "religion" because it advocates against these things and that the bash is never against the religion it's self or it's different denominations but the actions of these specific people.

and i said i agree with you that if it against someone having the belief in a god or that what they say is unfounded then i will just as fast pull them off their high horse.


by the fact that you say we have different ideas of religion bashing and up until that point no one had said anything bar the contradictions that are quite visibly there
AND the fact that you say your self there is only one that doesn't need interpretation means that you are a firm believer and take you bible seriously.

please note that it is you that has some sort of issue understanding anything as i have been quite understanding that this is obviously your faith and not ripped in to all the contradictions that do compromise what is said within it interpretation or not but there is no point in that as you'd argue to the death that it means something else or blindly ignore it.

oh and if you state that stupid fallacy thing one more time then we are in for a fight because up till now no one has even stated the the bible is PROVEN to have many fallacies within it but again maybe there is no point in that as no matter what is said you will spout the same thing.

also no it's not just the meanings of the words that have been changed, actual words and paragraphs have been changed like

which was an amendment made around the time of split from orthodoxy to Roman catholic. this is what is said by CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS. and there are other changes.

not to mention that the new testament was made by a group of individuals deciding what was to go in and what was not some added for political gain some removed for the way it really contradicted the other stuff. also note that only four gospels are in the bible this is not because there were only four OH No this is because they wanted you to think a certain way and the others where not fitting in this.
some of it is even western theology as the original text never once mentioned hell and passages that talk about hell mean alternative things.



final note, please see that i have not once commented on the actual belief of Jesus or that of god and have in no way said anything offensive toward that faith only stated FACTS. if you are upset by this then you should not be here as you do not poses the skill to debate with an open mind.

further more i hope you can if you are going to have a debate to defend your faith then to do so by doing it appropriately by using knowledge of your faith and not the disgusting display of attacking and twisting everything i say.

i have said this many time those that defend religion that a good defence is not offence but the use of knowledge you have.
i have great debates on this subject with my very devout manager and he defends with his knowledge of passages and it's magnificent and respectable.
(also note that "interpretation" is not a decent argument i expect better)

P.S. do you know what surprises me the most that no one has yet to mentioned that Adam and Eve has no bearing on anything as it is the biggest fallacy in the bible as we know you could not spawn the entire human race from two people and that the evidence for human evolution is complete and un-deniable.

 

Stopped reading here, as it's evident that not only have you missed my point yet again, but you've backpedalled and ended up contradicting yourself.

Fact or fiction aside, the rest of your post is irrelevant, even misdirected (see: ignoratio elenchi; straw man fallacy; ad hominem ).

I'm done here.

 

WHAT POINT!

everything you have said has been saying all i'm saying is fallacies and misguided and missed EVERY point i have made

truth your full of shit and can't debate without twisting and attacking what is said. why not discuss something without your disgusting habits and back your shit up.

i read all the dross you write and you can't do the same for me just because i have opposing opinions then you, shows what kind of a man you are.

 

PROTIP: further ad hominem does not a debate win.

As you are the one that has asserted that religion "teaches against free-speech, the gain of knowledge, pro-choice, gay marriage, personal opinions, science, medicine, other religions, intelligence and so on" (your words), then the burden of proof lies with you. Additionally, as I have stated before, these conclusions have come about due to your generalisation of religion and religious people, therefore they do not apply consistently to all religions, denominations or religious adherents. Your generalisation is inaccurate.

Opposing opinions? How ironic. This farcical debate started because I was advocating freedom of opinion and debasing hypocrisy. I'll thank you not to make (drastically incorrect) assumptions on my motivations or persona.

I've explained the reasons as to why I've dismissed your posts, yet you've dismissed these reasons time and time again. I'll say it one more time: if your argument contains a logical fallacy then it is null and void of any meaning in this discussion.

 

your an idiot this is stupid

do you really want me to go through and quote my self.

i'll say it slow and loud so you understand

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND AGREE MOST OF THE TIME BUT AM EXPLAINING THAT I SAID THAT IT IS NOT SO MUCH MY VIEW BUT THAT OF THOSE PEOPLE "BASHING" AND THAT WHEN I SAY ANYTHING IT DOES NOT GO FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON OR DENOMINATION WITHIN THAT RELIGION.

so stop saying that i am generalizing about all denominations and religious people

i have explained it many times and very well, if you still want to be a attack and twist my words then you only go to prove why people bash religion because every time the subject is talked about people like you start an argument attacking people and twisting their words.
maybe that is your understanding of what i am saying but that upsets me to think that there are people like that in the word that you need to show this disgusting display rather the intelligently debate your point with backed up knowledge of your own faith.

your points are made badly made and could easily be discussed at an appropriate level without the attacks and the twisting of words, i know because i do defend religion and i do a damn sight better job then you do.

 

Let me know when you're done trying to use ad hominem to devalue my arguments and disguise the misdirection and contradictions of your own.

 

well done for again picking apart everything twisting it and not actually making a point bar trying to misrepresent anything a have said and detract from the original discussion.

i didn't back pedal i just wasn't changing the subject like you are doing. you still are not debating anything and are just attacking my words so i don't see where you are going with this as it has nothing to do with what either you or i have said which is the reason for this

your not making a point at all.

you make me laugh, you claim hypocrisy and then you say that i'm trying to use ad hominem to devalue your argument arguments
bar calling you an idiot i have mostly just explained my self yet your posts are nothing but that.

and i'm not trying to win the discussion, you may want to. i on the other hand want to have a discussion that holds merit and isn't this again disgusting display you want to put on.

i gave an answer to your statement
i gave you a reason why people bash religion
what are you doing?

and if i can't give/defend the opinion of someone making comment on a religion that is actively observed to be actually doing the actions/prejudices that they are accused of then under the same ideal you can't defend any other persons denomination/beliefs/actions but your own.

so i ask of you again not to attack my words and discuss appropriately or you hold no purpose in this thread but to derail it.

 

My point was that your generalisation was inaccurate. That was my point from the moment you entered this thread, and that was my point up until the backpedalling began. For reference, here are some of your original points:

And now we have the backpedal:

...And then we have copious ad hominem. Let's address that and other logical fallacies too, shall we?

...And the rest is more of the same.

So, hopefully you're done denying the backpedal and hopefully you realise that ad hominem is only useful for making you look bad, especially when the effort you put into it degrades as severely as it did here.

Now, all is said and done. Better luck next time.

 

better luck next time?

I'm not trying to win an argument as i said again stop quoting and highlighting parts of it to twist and serve your purpose of attacking me.

again i didn't backpeddle i never changed the original point that was to explain to you
again you twist the way talk about generalizations.
i omitted that they are generalizations and why

again i ask of you to stop the shamless display and discuss something yet you still attack my words. you keep highlighting points and trying to disarm them yet you misinterpret the understanding.

this is a joke your taking what you want to hear out of what i am actually saying ironically the same as Christians do with the bible that they are bashed for.


again i have to ask that you actually discuss something rather then attack and misrepresent what I'm saying to you.


i could do exactly the same with your posts and show your contradiction and hypocrisy but I'm not because I'm not sinking to your level and as i said it's shameless and serves no purpose but to derail the thread.

OK apparently my original post was a fallicy OK fine I'll show you some of the things we see that bring the "bashers" to their conclusion about religion. but again that these things that are shown are not applicable to every single person in religion but a representation of how it is perceived because of the actions of some.

advocates against gays/gay marridge

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society-say-bishops.html

http://www.galha.org/christians-back-discrimination-against-gays

advocates against pro choice

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/one-million-anti-abortion-demonstrators-rally-in-madrid/7137.htm
note that it is not the article it's self that promotes against it but that it is the church rallying the people to do it and if you read other articles about this that the turn out was almost entirely religious followers.

some other things

RAY COMFORT and his disgraceful release of the origins of species with a pages attached to the front spouting his nonsensical shit and almost everything he says and does and the millions of people that say the same thing as they believe what he says.

i can go on giving you hundreds of examples of why it is seen as originally described but I'm sure you still won't talk like a rational person and talk about these things and not misinterpret my words

note i have still not attacked the religion it's self of even quoted the hundreds of contradictions and fallacies in the bible it's self nor have i attacked what you are saying.

show me the same courtesy and discuss not attack.

but I'm sure as the last few times i asked you, you will attack something i have said and take it out of context.

 

This is all I needed to see. Glad we're finally in agreement.

 

sarcasm if you didn't realize as i backed up what i was saying.

you may think you have one up on me but again i'm not arguing with you and you have still failed to discuss ANYTHING.

you only further this show of arrogance, shamelessness and well i don't know what as i still don't understand your reasoning for attacking all i say yet still not discuss anything with any quality and dignity.

 

Wow, okay. It seems I overestimated you, though I didn't think that was even possible at the outset.

I sincerely wish you luck in later life. You're gonna need it.