Okay, so there was a "big poll" on Facebook that asked if you trusted the bible or science more... I can't believe that the poll (last I checked) was at 50/50. Pathetic! And a common statement I saw: "Science is always changing, but the bible stays the same."
How can one short sentence actually contain that many mistakes and misconceptions in so few words? Wow, this is total and epic failure of synaptic activity! Where do I start?
First of all, the bible fables most of you mentally castrated simpletons are reading in no way resembles the bible of a thousand years ago. Heck, even in the past 500 years it has had quite a a few edits. The KJV is even under attack by the fucktards at Consevipedia, and they want to take out all the "liberal bias" in the bible. WTF?!
And complaining that science changes? I suppose you were fine with barbers being surgeons then? Or would you prefer to go back to a goat herding lifestyle in the edges of the Mediterranean Sea? If anything, the constant changes of science is its greatest STRENGTH. it actually has the ability to correct for mistakes and get rid of ideas that don't quite fit. The bible has no such mechanism, so instead you get apologists that have to rationalize slavery, genocide, sexism, etc...
Man, I am so fucking disgusted with people adhering to bronze age mythologies in this day and age. I don't care if you think you are smart (and well, you may be), but you are foolish beyond measure. So please, if you cling to these childish and frankly dumb beliefs, don't expect me to respect you. I will deal with you on a rational level, and will treat you as a human being, but just know that in reality I feel sorry for you. Living in such a small mind and world when the universe is so much more spectacular than your petty little god or bible could ever imagine.
Personally, I think all the theitards out there are just pissed off that they can't go out and conquer some slaves, and can't publicly admit to their desire to subjugate their women. Fucking bronze age barbarians.
01 November 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
the bible fables most of you mentally castrated simpletons are reading in no way resembles the bible of a thousand years ago.
Source?
Which bible? KJV? NKJV? Catholic? Or any of the other hundred or so versions out there in circulation. Pretty shitty job for the immutable word of god. Heck, compared to the Wycliffe bible, the KJV had a major edit in 1611 and again in 1769.
But since the bible gets so many things wrong, let's have a look see:
Interesting book:
Finkelstein and Silberman challenge the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and argue that:
-There is no evidence for the existence of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
-The same is true for Moses.
-The Exodus and the conquest of Canaan are not historical events.
-The israelites were not immigrants in Canaan at all.
-Israel and Judah were never united into one kingdom that was ruled from Jerusalem by David and Solomon.
-Jerusalem in the bronze age was a tiny, primitive village of hardly 2000 inhabitants.
-The "historical" texts of the OT are written around the time of king Josiah in the 7th - 6th century b.c.e., mainly for ideological reasons.
http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
Such viewpoints are on the lunatic fringe. No serious historian questions the integrity of scriptures. 3 words Lunk. Dead Sea Scrolls
Oh, I guess I should cite examples instead of just spouting off.
Historians bet against the Bible by stating that the Hittite Empire, Nineveh, King Saul, Sodom and Gemorrah, and most recently Nehemiah's Wall were pure fiction because there werent independent sources from the Bible to verify them and they were never discovered.
They have repeatedly eaten crow for all of the above remarks. Has there ever been an archeological find that contradicted the Bible?
Dead Sea Scrolls
Your point being? That there are numerous books and even books and thoughts that would be considered blasphemous that were once "the bible" that no longer are? That was sort of my point...
And I did make a mistake, I meant to say 1700 years ago, not 1000 years ago. The council of Nicaea knew utter BS and tossed it when it saw it. ;)
Youre discussing a time when a religion was being founded. If any of the "writings" that got tossed out is something you would like to argue go ahead.
Insofar as the "Catholic" Bible, that only differs in the inclusion of the Apocrypha. That's all. That doesnt bother me. I don't think it's inspired, but if they want to read it, have at it.
Catholic vs other version of bible: yeah, tell that to Northern Ireland... But the changes in 325 and throughout history were more significant than just including the Apocrypha. Even your stupid dead sea scrolls have an entire book that wasn't included (and since it's made up BS most didn't even know about).
And why is xtianity so different today compared to how it was interpreted back then? As has been said before: "Christians claim that skeptics have come and gone but their faith has withstood all attacks so far and survived. Balderdash! Here's the truth. The Christianity that survived is a reinvented one in each generation as the result of skeptical attacks, sometimes coming from within. Just think of the modernist rift due to the enlightenment which divided all denominations to some degree. This division can be attributed to the skeptical attacks of Hume, Kant, Darwin, Nietzsche, Paine, Ingersoll, and many others. The liberal church is a testament to the effectiveness of the skeptical arguments. Even within conservative denominations there are liberal ideas that would have been condemned by the Office of the Inquisition, like Open Theism, a metaphorical and/or annihilation view of Hell, women in leadership, Preterism, the emergent church, acceptance of a gay orientation, the mythical (or literary) view of Genesis 1-2, and so forth and so on. The Christianity practiced and believed by any denomination today is not something the early church would recognize. And the future church will be almost as different. Let's have done then with this cockamamie notion that the church has survived our attacks. No it hasn't. In each generation the former Christianity dies, so to speak, and a new one is invented due to skeptical arguments."
I am just waiting for the change when it's all realized as bullshit, and goes away.
Open Theism, a metaphorical and/or annihilation view of Hell, women in leadership, Preterism, the emergent church, acceptance of a gay orientation, the mythical (or literary) view of Genesis 1-2, and so forth and so on.
Hey Lunkster, why don't you post these one at a time and we'll discuss them? That's if youre interested anyway. Check out this entry re: the emergent church. It sums it up quite well.
Off-topic. Lunk, have you ever heard of an Air Force flight surgeon and a Chief of Aerospace Medicine, Dr. Randy Guliuzza? Here's a link to a conference he's a featured speaker at. I'm sure you have your reservations already.
Post a Comment