Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000  I take every bit of the bible literally. It may seem that one does not have a choice with God, but the over all theme of the Good Book is your choice. Your choice no matter what story is to choose God or choose death. Plain and simple. If a man is afraid to understand the bible without doubt, then he will never understand. But if a man realeases his doubt, then he will understand the bible. A belief is something you find true no matter what evidence is brought against it. All evidence against the bible has no rock beneath it. |
You take every bit of the Bible literally? As in, if it presented you with a claimed historical fact (e.g., a genealogy), you would assume it was presenting you with actual past events? Then, I suppose Joseph had two fathers, who reproduced together by God's divine grace? After all,
Matthew's genealogy differs in every single name/ancestor from
Luke's genealogy, as well as (significantly) in the number of ancestors (at least, up until they get to David--curiously, the genealogies agree perfectly after David; in other unrelated news, the Old Testament had
a genealogy of David, a book both of the authors had access to). So, I guess since the Bible is literal, Joseph had two fathers (one of whom bore Joseph by God's magnificent grace--and you thought
you were special, Mary) whose ancestries happened to collide back upon a common predecessor, David. Or, perhaps God made a boo boo and wasn't paying attention to guiding Matthew and Luke's hands when they were writing that down. Nah. Of course not. It's the Bible. It must be literal. Thank you for gay sex, Bible.
EDIT: It bemuses and saddens me people like you can continue to "believe" this bullcrap, going so far as to refuse any empirical evidence whatsoever in favor of some Greek and Hebrew words written centuries ago (how can you be sure they were? Carbon dating? Oh, wait, that's empirical...). What's even more perplexing, however, is that people point out the blatant
inherent contradictions found in this text (such as the one described) without even referring to any of the empirical evidence you so dearly fear, and yet you still dismiss it without a single blemish on your conscience (sometimes claiming the Bible is literal, while at other times it has to be interpreted; but wait! Paul said in
the Bible that "the scriptures" (
the Bible) are not to be interpreted, but are completely absolute and literal). If you wish, you can practice
doublethink all you want, but if some theistic God did exist, adoption of such complete abolishment of rationality would not be favored by a Jesus, but rather, by a Satan. Blind adoption of a concept--what we term "faith"--by young apes and hominids (including human children) is indeed beneficial to survival (e.g., parents might not know why the rapidly moving molecules in fire burn a hand, but if their child did not accept this "belief" blindly--by faith--it would be more likely to die). However, since many people here like him, to quote Dawkins, "children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it." Grow up.
EDIT2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000 To not recognize absurdity IS crazy. |
I was going to say something, but then I decided to look up a random word in the dictionary. Ooh, what's this one mean? "Irony."
EDIT3:
Sorry for sounding upset, aggressive, or jeering. I was. Irrationality is my biggest antagonist. I know this post very likely did not, and will not convince anybody of anything, or inform people of much (except for maybe yet another Biblical discrepancy). It inadvertently became sarcastic comic relief (a la H. L. Mencken, dare I say?) for myself and others who find faith ridiculous. So to you pyrrhonists out there, I hope I catalyzed a good chuckle. ;-)