The Bible is...

[BruisedxBroken]

Have fun, kids...

[MIKEY_HORROR]

truth.

[mikeyystyles]

Gospel/Gossip? Coincidence?

[ForeverDelayed]

None of the above.

How about... A collection of various genres of literature that must be understood and interpretted within the context of their particular genre, the culture which they came from, the intended purpose, and the intended audience, which were later compiled into a scriptural canon by the Roman Catholic Church.

[TBSEmoKid]

This poll seems a little biased.All of the choices except the first two are so harsh,haha.

[BruisedxBroken]

This poll seems a little biased.All of the choices except the first two are so harsh,haha.

So the Holy Koran (ftw!) is harsh now!?

My muslim alter ego Kareem-Abdul-Rahim-Ali-Amadimijad would thank you to reconsider...

[leezer]

none of these options suit what I think

[Oddpac87]

The results of this poll make me sad.

[MADSTA]

TORAH ftw.

[BruisedxBroken]

TORAH ftw.

Jew shit will not be tolerated in any of Kareem-Abdul-Rahim-Ali-Amadimijad's threads. Take it elsewhere moneygrubber...

[MADSTA]

Jew shit will not be tolerated in any of Kareem-Abdul-Rahim-Ali-Amadimijad's threads. Take it elsewhere moneygrubber...
I'm actually not Jewish, I just decided to add it since it wasn't in the poll.

[Machu505]

BHAGAVAD GITA FTW

x

[Bridgetthemidge]

The Bible entertains me.

The Old Testament talks about how God says everyone should be stoned to death when they don't follow his commandments, and then Jesus comes in The New Testament and totally contradicts that and says to love everyone.

[mikeyystyles]

The Bible, especially the New Testament is kind of like different stories all mashed together. Especially when you take Peter and/or Paul's (Saul) testament. You have Peter, Jesus' right hand man, basically best friend.. (kind of like Biggie is to Jesus, P Diddy is to Peter). Then you have this guy Paul (Saul) who really never met Jesus, but was or could have been Jesus' biggest fan. Well Peter and Paul both write their testimony about their experiences among several others with Jesus and then 1,000 years later Emporer Constantine wants a book published telling the story of Christianity. So what you really get from the Bible is, one mans story (Peter) of his best friend who he most likely tries playing up to be more almighty then anyone to ever walk the earth. And then some crazy Fan (Paul) who was a firm believer that Jesus was the son of God. Now what I take from all this... remember there is no internet, tv, newspaper, just spoken word (Remember how the game telephone works). That over a thousand years the stories of Jesus became greater and greater, that when they were finally printed into the Bible they became more like Epic Tales.

[Bridgetthemidge]

Oh, and let's not forget how the higher authorities of the Church got to pick and choose the gospels that would be put in and left out of the Bible. There were a helluva lot more written and found than what was put in there. That really bothers me. I think it's all pretty damn fake. And even if it wasn't, with all the languages it's been translated into, it's probably a lot different from the original, since there aren't words that mean the same in other languages, etc.

I don't like the Bible, if you couldn't tell.

[ForeverDelayed]

The Bible, especially the New Testament is kind of like different stories all mashed together. Especially when you take Peter and/or Paul's (Saul) testament. You have Peter, Jesus' right hand man, basically best friend.. (kind of like Biggie is to Jesus, P Diddy is to Peter). Then you have this guy Paul (Saul) who really never met Jesus, but was or could have been Jesus' biggest fan. Well Peter and Paul both write their testimony about their experiences among several others with Jesus and then 1,000 years later Emporer Constantine wants a book published telling the story of Christianity. So what you really get from the Bible is, one mans story (Peter) of his best friend who he most likely tries playing up to be more almighty then anyone to ever walk the earth. And then some crazy Fan (Paul) who was a firm believer that Jesus was the son of God. Now what I take from all this... remember there is no internet, tv, newspaper, just spoken word (Remember how the game telephone works). That over a thousand years the stories of Jesus became greater and greater, that when they were finally printed into the Bible they became more like Epic Tales.
Well, Paul's testimony (assuming you're talking about his conversion story) was actually written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel According to Luke and The Acts Of The Apostles, the latter of which has the story of Paul. All we have from Paul is the letters he wrote to various churches and people, and while some of those do contain personal anecdotes, they're definitely more of a guidebook for the churches concerning spiritual affairs than they are any sort of testamony or biography.

As for your chronology, you're way off. Constantine was the Roman Emperor from 306-324, which is clearly not 1,000 years later. And he himself had almost nothing to do with the canonization process. All he did was issue the Edict of Toleration, which made it illegal to persecute Christians. When he himself became a Christian then Christianity became the default religion of the empire. The books of the New Testament were officially canonized in 393, almost 70 years after Constantine died. And the books of the Old Testament are just the Hebrew Scriptures, which we officially selected centuries before the birth of Jesus.

As for your final point, in the big picture you're partly right. The stories about Jesus probably were embellished upon and changed and exaggerated, because hey, we had a religion to promote right? But this most certainly didn't happen "over a thousand years" when you take into consideration that even the most skeptical and liberal scholars believe that the earliest books of the New Testament were written during the generation or so after Jesus. Conservative scholars place some books, like Paul's letters, even earlier, at a time when many of the individuals mentioned in the Gospels would have still been alive. And you can't really argue that these embellishments came after the writing and canonization process, because there are copies of manuscripts from the second and third centuries that are almost identical to what is in today's Bible.

And as for whatever exaggerations did happen and how they affect the truthfulness and/or reliability of the Bible, this goes back to what I said before about understanding the different genres of literature, intended audience, and intended purpose. The Gospels were never meant to be literal biographies of Jesus, they had an agenda. The stories in the Gospels also fit into the broader genre of mythology, and as such have to be understood in a different light. Many of the possible later embellishments were only to "prove" that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, and each Gospel takes its own approach to painting the character of Jesus in such a way that forwards its agenda. If you try to read the Bible like a textbook, then it's full of holes, everything from inconsistencies and contradictions to out-and-out lies and impossibilities. But if you read the Bible as mythology then it makes a lot more sense, and all of these textual problems really don't matter because they're irrelevant to the purpose of the writing. And before the Christians get all riled up let me just say this - the word mythology doesn't necessarily mean something isn't true. It is a genre of literature, and if you study literature enough you'll see that the Bible fits every description of what myth is. It is possible to believe the Bible is both myth and truth, the famous Christian writer CS Lewis called Christianity a myth that is true. And he would know a lot more about this than I do, seeing as how he had a bunch of degrees in literature, whereas I'm just a regular guy with a lot of free time who has been reading theology for a decade.

[ForeverDelayed]

Oh, and let's not forget how the higher authorities of the Church got to pick and choose the gospels that would be put in and left out of the Bible. There were a helluva lot more written and found than what was put in there. That really bothers me. I think it's all pretty damn fake. And even if it wasn't, with all the languages it's been translated into, it's probably a lot different from the original, since there aren't words that mean the same in other languages, etc.

I don't like the Bible, if you couldn't tell.
Well you have to look at this from an historical context. At the time of the canonization of the Bible, there were many different factions (or "heresies" if you want) that were fighting for the control of this new religion. As you said, there were a ton of different manuscripts - everything from Gospels, letters, hymns, theological discources, you name it - that were floating around at the time. There really was no standard, because at the time the new Church had very little in the way of centralized government, and communication between parts of the world was much slower than it is now. Information and ideas didn't flow very fast from one end of the empire to the other, and localized cults (cults in the original meaning of the word, not as in jump suits and grape Kool Aid) grew up at all of your major population centers. Each one of these local churches would in turn develop its own variation on the canon, or sometimes its own canon alltogether. Very few books were agreed upon, and the ones that were weren't unanimous. When you're constantly fighting for unity against heresy (gnosticism especially) and fighting for market share against a ton of other populist religions and movements, a unified scripture is a great way to unite the people and help your movement to grow. And that's exactly what happened. The Church had specific criteria they considered when picking the books of the New Testament, including adherance to accepted doctrine, the authenticity of the author and how widespread usage of said book was in the empire. Basically, if the book didn't line up with what they already believed, wasn't written by someone they could at least pass off as someone famous, and wasn't widely used, then they didn't keep it. This united the young Church as a diverse body that was now reading the same writings and reinforcing the same core beliefs, and as a result most of your dissenting factions died out or appeared centuries later with a new name only to be killed off again. You can object to this process if you want, someone who doesn't believe in the Bible or Christianity most certainly would. But think about the alternative - a completely chaotic religion with no internal standards of belief. Someone who is against the Church wouldn't find this to be a bad thing, but anyone should at least be able to understand why the Church did what it did. It was basically either compile one standardized scripture, or have your religion splinter off into a million groups and die off.

As for the language issue, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, with some parts written in Aramaic. The latter is a dead language, but Greek is very much still alive and well. It has gone through many changes over the years, as has English, but there are still thousands of people alive today who speak classical Greek. We have manuscripts existing from as early as the second century, around 100 years after they were written, and we have people who can read and translate those with no problem whatsoever. The issue is not at all the different languages the Bible was written in and translated into, the issue is interpretation. Anyone who has learned a foreign language knows that you can't translate word for word because it makes absolutely no sense. You have to translate ideas. And every person who translates will interpret each idea slightly differently, because we all have our own biases and our own lens which we look through. The bad news is that we have a billion different translations of the Bible, and unless you speak classical Greek we have no way of knowing which one is closest to the original writings. But the good news is that since it's all about interpretation, you're free to not care which is closest and read from the translation that you can relate to the best. There are times that this can cause disunity, because once again you have everyone reading something different and no accepted standard. This is why the Catholic Church seems so set on putting everything in stone. But when you step back and look at the big picture, no matter which version of the Bible one reads, the central messages are still the same. Jesus was still this dude who came preaching love, kindness, purity, truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, nonviolence, social justice, etc. And if you agree with that statement and agree that Jesus was a pretty cool guy, then I honestly don't care which version of the Bible you read or if you think it's all a load of crap, you're okay in my book.

[BruisedxBroken]

Well, Paul's testimony (assuming you're talking about his conversion story) was actually written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel According to Luke and The Acts Of The Apostles, the latter of which has the story of Paul. All we have from Paul is the letters he wrote to various churches and people, and while some of those do contain personal anecdotes, they're definitely more of a guidebook for the churches concerning spiritual affairs than they are any sort of testamony or biography.

As for your chronology, you're way off. Constantine was the Roman Emperor from 306-324, which is clearly not 1,000 years later. And he himself had almost nothing to do with the canonization process. All he did was issue the Edict of Toleration, which made it illegal to persecute Christians. When he himself became a Christian then Christianity became the default religion of the empire. The books of the New Testament were officially canonized in 393, almost 70 years after Constantine died. And the books of the Old Testament are just the Hebrew Scriptures, which we officially selected centuries before the birth of Jesus.

As for your final point, in the big picture you're partly right. The stories about Jesus probably were embellished upon and changed and exaggerated, because hey, we had a religion to promote right? But this most certainly didn't happen "over a thousand years" when you take into consideration that even the most skeptical and liberal scholars believe that the earliest books of the New Testament were written during the generation or so after Jesus. Conservative scholars place some books, like Paul's letters, even earlier, at a time when many of the individuals mentioned in the Gospels would have still been alive. And you can't really argue that these embellishments came after the writing and canonization process, because there are copies of manuscripts from the second and third centuries that are almost identical to what is in today's Bible.

And as for whatever exaggerations did happen and how they affect the truthfulness and/or reliability of the Bible, this goes back to what I said before about understanding the different genres of literature, intended audience, and intended purpose. The Gospels were never meant to be literal biographies of Jesus, they had an agenda. The stories in the Gospels also fit into the broader genre of mythology, and as such have to be understood in a different light. Many of the possible later embellishments were only to "prove" that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, and each Gospel takes its own approach to painting the character of Jesus in such a way that forwards its agenda. If you try to read the Bible like a textbook, then it's full of holes, everything from inconsistencies and contradictions to out-and-out lies and impossibilities. But if you read the Bible as mythology then it makes a lot more sense, and all of these textual problems really don't matter because they're irrelevant to the purpose of the writing. And before the Christians get all riled up let me just say this - the word mythology doesn't necessarily mean something isn't true. It is a genre of literature, and if you study literature enough you'll see that the Bible fits every description of what myth is. It is possible to believe the Bible is both myth and truth, the famous Christian writer CS Lewis called Christianity a myth that is true. And he would know a lot more about this than I do, seeing as how he had a bunch of degrees in literature, whereas I'm just a regular guy with a lot of free time who has been reading theology for a decade.

Well you have to look at this from an historical context. At the time of the canonization of the Bible, there were many different factions (or "heresies" if you want) that were fighting for the control of this new religion. As you said, there were a ton of different manuscripts - everything from Gospels, letters, hymns, theological discources, you name it - that were floating around at the time. There really was no standard, because at the time the new Church had very little in the way of centralized government, and communication between parts of the world was much slower than it is now. Information and ideas didn't flow very fast from one end of the empire to the other, and localized cults (cults in the original meaning of the word, not as in jump suits and grape Kool Aid) grew up at all of your major population centers. Each one of these local churches would in turn develop its own variation on the canon, or sometimes its own canon alltogether. Very few books were agreed upon, and the ones that were weren't unanimous. When you're constantly fighting for unity against heresy (gnosticism especially) and fighting for market share against a ton of other populist religions and movements, a unified scripture is a great way to unite the people and help your movement to grow. And that's exactly what happened. The Church had specific criteria they considered when picking the books of the New Testament, including adherance to accepted doctrine, the authenticity of the author and how widespread usage of said book was in the empire. Basically, if the book didn't line up with what they already believed, wasn't written by someone they could at least pass off as someone famous, and wasn't widely used, then they didn't keep it. This united the young Church as a diverse body that was now reading the same writings and reinforcing the same core beliefs, and as a result most of your dissenting factions died out or appeared centuries later with a new name only to be killed off again. You can object to this process if you want, someone who doesn't believe in the Bible or Christianity most certainly would. But think about the alternative - a completely chaotic religion with no internal standards of belief. Someone who is against the Church wouldn't find this to be a bad thing, but anyone should at least be able to understand why the Church did what it did. It was basically either compile one standardized scripture, or have your religion splinter off into a million groups and die off.

As for the language issue, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, with some parts written in Aramaic. The latter is a dead language, but Greek is very much still alive and well. It has gone through many changes over the years, as has English, but there are still thousands of people alive today who speak classical Greek. We have manuscripts existing from as early as the second century, around 100 years after they were written, and we have people who can read and translate those with no problem whatsoever. The issue is not at all the different languages the Bible was written in and translated into, the issue is interpretation. Anyone who has learned a foreign language knows that you can't translate word for word because it makes absolutely no sense. You have to translate ideas. And every person who translates will interpret each idea slightly differently, because we all have our own biases and our own lens which we look through. The bad news is that we have a billion different translations of the Bible, and unless you speak classical Greek we have no way of knowing which one is closest to the original writings. But the good news is that since it's all about interpretation, you're free to not care which is closest and read from the translation that you can relate to the best. There are times that this can cause disunity, because once again you have everyone reading something different and no accepted standard. This is why the Catholic Church seems so set on putting everything in stone. But when you step back and look at the big picture, no matter which version of the Bible one reads, the central messages are still the same. Jesus was still this dude who came preaching love, kindness, purity, truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, nonviolence, social justice, etc. And if you agree with that statement and agree that Jesus was a pretty cool guy, then I honestly don't care which version of the Bible you read or if you think it's all a load of crap, you're okay in my book.

Mad props to anyone who actually read all that...

[wewascontenders]

a book

[ForeverDelayed]

Mad props to anyone who actually read all that...
Well if you're not into heavy serious discussion than I wouldn't expect you to read all of that. But if you are looking for an actual discussion and not just an opportunity to flame Christianity, then you have to understand that it's not a simple black and white issue that can be solved with a few quick soundbytes. So if you're interested and wanna read it, go for it, perhaps we could have some really interesting responses. If you're not willing to do your homework and consider all the shades of grey and really address things seriously and scholarly, then I don't really feel like arguing with you because your mind is already made up.

[whiteboypain]

lol, the bible

[BruisedxBroken]

Well if you're not into heavy serious discussion than I wouldn't expect you to read all of that. But if you are looking for an actual discussion and not just an opportunity to flame Christianity, then you have to understand that it's not a simple black and white issue that can be solved with a few quick soundbytes. So if you're interested and wanna read it, go for it, perhaps we could have some really interesting responses. If you're not willing to do your homework and consider all the shades of grey and really address things seriously and scholarly, then I don't really feel like arguing with you because your mind is already made up.

Glad that's settled...

[mikeyystyles]

Well, Paul's testimony (assuming you're talking about his conversion story) was actually written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel According to Luke and The Acts Of The Apostles, the latter of which has the story of Paul. All we have from Paul is the letters he wrote to various churches and people, and while some of those do contain personal anecdotes, they're definitely more of a guidebook for the churches concerning spiritual affairs than they are any sort of testamony or biography.

As for your chronology, you're way off. Constantine was the Roman Emperor from 306-324, which is clearly not 1,000 years later. And he himself had almost nothing to do with the canonization process. All he did was issue the Edict of Toleration, which made it illegal to persecute Christians. When he himself became a Christian then Christianity became the default religion of the empire. The books of the New Testament were officially canonized in 393, almost 70 years after Constantine died. And the books of the Old Testament are just the Hebrew Scriptures, which we officially selected centuries before the birth of Jesus.

As for your final point, in the big picture you're partly right. The stories about Jesus probably were embellished upon and changed and exaggerated, because hey, we had a religion to promote right? But this most certainly didn't happen "over a thousand years" when you take into consideration that even the most skeptical and liberal scholars believe that the earliest books of the New Testament were written during the generation or so after Jesus. Conservative scholars place some books, like Paul's letters, even earlier, at a time when many of the individuals mentioned in the Gospels would have still been alive. And you can't really argue that these embellishments came after the writing and canonization process, because there are copies of manuscripts from the second and third centuries that are almost identical to what is in today's Bible.

And as for whatever exaggerations did happen and how they affect the truthfulness and/or reliability of the Bible, this goes back to what I said before about understanding the different genres of literature, intended audience, and intended purpose. The Gospels were never meant to be literal biographies of Jesus, they had an agenda. The stories in the Gospels also fit into the broader genre of mythology, and as such have to be understood in a different light. Many of the possible later embellishments were only to "prove" that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, and each Gospel takes its own approach to painting the character of Jesus in such a way that forwards its agenda. If you try to read the Bible like a textbook, then it's full of holes, everything from inconsistencies and contradictions to out-and-out lies and impossibilities. But if you read the Bible as mythology then it makes a lot more sense, and all of these textual problems really don't matter because they're irrelevant to the purpose of the writing. And before the Christians get all riled up let me just say this - the word mythology doesn't necessarily mean something isn't true. It is a genre of literature, and if you study literature enough you'll see that the Bible fits every description of what myth is. It is possible to believe the Bible is both myth and truth, the famous Christian writer CS Lewis called Christianity a myth that is true. And he would know a lot more about this than I do, seeing as how he had a bunch of degrees in literature, whereas I'm just a regular guy with a lot of free time who has been reading theology for a decade.

Nice Job.. can't argue with ya. I said one thousand years more or less just exaggerating what I was saying. One thing that does make sense is that on a calendar/timeline we start counting from 0 A.D. to present time, however there has been a lot of specualtion of how long ago the real birth of Christ was. Not being able to pin point an actual date/time (and Dec 25, Christmas is not the real date).

[ForeverDelayed]

Nice Job.. can't argue with ya. I said one thousand years more or less just exaggerating what I was saying. One thing that does make sense is that on a calendar/timeline we start counting from 0 A.D. to present time, however there has been a lot of specualtion of how long ago the real birth of Christ was. Not being able to pin point an actual date/time (and Dec 25, Christmas is not the real date).
Yeah it's pretty much accepted that the December 25th date is a crock of shit. Even just using the biblical texts it wouldn't work. The shepherds were tending their flocks right? Except that December is the middle of the rainy season in Jerusalem, and they wouldn't have been out with them for any serious length of time. Most scholars put it closer to October, but even that is just an educated guess, no one really has any idea. But the December 25th date was most certainly an appeal to the pagans. It's a lot easier to get someone to convert to your religion if you make your holy days the same as theirs and incorporate imagery and symbolism that they'd be used to. As for the year, different parts of the world were using different calendars at that time, and the BC/AD crossover was added long after the fact, so we can't really be sure about that either. If you accept the Bible as unquestionable factual truth and take all of the claims of the Church literaly and divorce it from the big picture, then all of this causes problems. But if you look at the big picture and don't worry about petty details, then it's really no big deal.

[ForeverDelayed]

Glad that's settled...
Well, I can't say I understand why someone would start a thread about something they don't want to discuss seriously, but more power to ya. I am curious to know exactly why you want to bash Christianity and the Bible, but I'm not going to try to make you answer anything. There's bound to be others here who are interested in an intelligent discussion, so I'd rather spend my time that way.

[mikeyystyles]

Well, I can't say I understand why someone would start a thread about something they don't want to discuss seriously, but more power to ya. I am curious to know exactly why you want to bash Christianity and the Bible, but I'm not going to try to make you answer anything. There's bound to be others here who are interested in an intelligent discussion, so I'd rather spend my time that way.


Yea I second that... I know certainly I'm not going to be bashing Christianity.. I just love to question things I choose to believe in. I think its very interesting to talk/debate about religion.

[blindrider529]

Mad props to anyone who actually read all that...
haha I read most of it and spent hours about hours reading books about the subject! Does that count ?
:-)

[fooboy1212]

the fact htat truth is winning shows how sophomoric the average person on this website is. if you actually believe the bible, all of it, as truth, you might want to study up on your faith.

[TakingBackDowd]

i am a catholic, and i think it's the third option because most things in the Bible are known to be fictional, but it's more of the meaning behind the story. for example, 'jonah and the whale' is obviously not a legitimate story, it's fiction, but it's still representing the idea of God, miracles, etc.

[drewziph]

haha

im amazed at how many of you are dumb.

[drewziph]

Well you have to look at this from an historical context. At the time of the canonization of the Bible, there were many different factions (or "heresies" if you want) that were fighting for the control of this new religion. As you said, there were a ton of different manuscripts - everything from Gospels, letters, hymns, theological discources, you name it - that were floating around at the time. There really was no standard, because at the time the new Church had very little in the way of centralized government, and communication between parts of the world was much slower than it is now. Information and ideas didn't flow very fast from one end of the empire to the other, and localized cults (cults in the original meaning of the word, not as in jump suits and grape Kool Aid) grew up at all of your major population centers. Each one of these local churches would in turn develop its own variation on the canon, or sometimes its own canon alltogether. Very few books were agreed upon, and the ones that were weren't unanimous. When you're constantly fighting for unity against heresy (gnosticism especially) and fighting for market share against a ton of other populist religions and movements, a unified scripture is a great way to unite the people and help your movement to grow. And that's exactly what happened. The Church had specific criteria they considered when picking the books of the New Testament, including adherance to accepted doctrine, the authenticity of the author and how widespread usage of said book was in the empire. Basically, if the book didn't line up with what they already believed, wasn't written by someone they could at least pass off as someone famous, and wasn't widely used, then they didn't keep it. This united the young Church as a diverse body that was now reading the same writings and reinforcing the same core beliefs, and as a result most of your dissenting factions died out or appeared centuries later with a new name only to be killed off again. You can object to this process if you want, someone who doesn't believe in the Bible or Christianity most certainly would. But think about the alternative - a completely chaotic religion with no internal standards of belief. Someone who is against the Church wouldn't find this to be a bad thing, but anyone should at least be able to understand why the Church did what it did. It was basically either compile one standardized scripture, or have your religion splinter off into a million groups and die off.

As for the language issue, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, with some parts written in Aramaic. The latter is a dead language, but Greek is very much still alive and well. It has gone through many changes over the years, as has English, but there are still thousands of people alive today who speak classical Greek. We have manuscripts existing from as early as the second century, around 100 years after they were written, and we have people who can read and translate those with no problem whatsoever. The issue is not at all the different languages the Bible was written in and translated into, the issue is interpretation. Anyone who has learned a foreign language knows that you can't translate word for word because it makes absolutely no sense. You have to translate ideas. And every person who translates will interpret each idea slightly differently, because we all have our own biases and our own lens which we look through. The bad news is that we have a billion different translations of the Bible, and unless you speak classical Greek we have no way of knowing which one is closest to the original writings. But the good news is that since it's all about interpretation, you're free to not care which is closest and read from the translation that you can relate to the best. There are times that this can cause disunity, because once again you have everyone reading something different and no accepted standard. This is why the Catholic Church seems so set on putting everything in stone. But when you step back and look at the big picture, no matter which version of the Bible one reads, the central messages are still the same. Jesus was still this dude who came preaching love, kindness, purity, truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, nonviolence, social justice, etc. And if you agree with that statement and agree that Jesus was a pretty cool guy, then I honestly don't care which version of the Bible you read or if you think it's all a load of crap, you're okay in my book.
god loves anal.

[blindrider529]

god loves anal.
Can you back that up with any facts? :-)

[drewziph]

Can you back that up with any facts? :-)
'he came in me in a dream'

[blindrider529]

'he came in me in a dream'
:shudder:

[ForeverDelayed]

Yea I second that... I know certainly I'm not going to be bashing Christianity.. I just love to question things I choose to believe in. I think its very interesting to talk/debate about religion.
I'm always up for a good religious debate.

[ForeverDelayed]

haha I read most of it and spent hours about hours reading books about the subject! Does that count ?
:-)
What sort of stuff have you read? I was really into the canonization process for a while, must have read 10 books on it or more, I guess that's why my posts got so long winded. These days I've moved onto less specific stuff like comparitive religious studies, but I'm still really fascinated by the details of Christian theology and history.

[ForeverDelayed]

i am a catholic, and i think it's the third option because most things in the Bible are known to be fictional, but it's more of the meaning behind the story. for example, 'jonah and the whale' is obviously not a legitimate story, it's fiction, but it's still representing the idea of God, miracles, etc.
Exactly. That's where the concepts of myth come into play - these stories were never meant to be taken literally, but to point at greater spiritual realities. Christians in general seems to get this point until the whole fundamentalism movement and its insistance on total biblical literacy set us back a few hundred years :-p

[ForeverDelayed]

god loves anal.
Giving, or receiving? :-|

[drewziph]

Giving, or receiving? :-|
giving.
fucking people from behind is kinda his thing

[stendhal]

giving.
fucking people from behind is kinda his thing
Oh, blasphemous snap!

(the best kind.)

[deathbydawn]

its whatev you want it to be.. duh

[SmokieB.High]

How about a collection of story's that teach people to live good lives and not be dicks

Think about all these christians and catholics who have lived by this book for two thousand years; what would they follow if it were not for these rules to live by that the bible sets... the world could be chaos

[drewziph]

How about a collection of story's that teach people to live good lives and not be dicks

Think about all these christians and catholics who have lived by this book for two thousand years; what would they follow if it were not for these rules to live by that the bible sets... the world could be chaos
i know we'd all be blowing eachother up and stuff like that and...

wait.

[SmokieB.High]

Mad props to anyone who actually read all that...
See this is the problem with people today... they dont like to read unless it contains gossip, pete Wentz or how cool being Emo and wearing tight pants is

[SmokieB.High]

i know we'd all be blowing eachother up and stuff like that and...

wait.
Were Not dead yet

[BruisedxBroken]

See this is the problem with people today... they dont like to read unless it contains gossip, pete Wentz or how cool being Emo and wearing tight pants is

<3ZOMG! Pete Wentz and emo and tight jeans oh my!

Your username is teh lolerskatez too. We should hang out and get high some time, homie...

[ForeverDelayed]

giving.
fucking people from behind is kinda his thing
Well that's a relief. I sure wouldn't want to worship somebody's bitch.

[ForeverDelayed]

See this is the problem with people today... they dont like to read unless it contains gossip, pete Wentz or how cool being Emo and wearing tight pants is
People just don't like to read at all. They're so used to IM chat and sound bytes, anything longer than two sentences gets skimmed over. Which, ironically, is one of the main reasons we get into all sorts of arguments in the first place.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

People just don't like to read at all. They're so used to IM chat and sound bytes, anything longer than two sentences gets skimmed over. Which, ironically, is one of the main reasons we get into all sorts of arguments in the first place.


I don't think it has to do with AIM or IMs or anything of that sort. Before they had computers, do you really think people read a vast majority more? No, of course not. Now, I'm sure people might have read more, but it wasn't a huge majority.

Also, no matter what era you grew up in, some people just don't want to read.

[MyNameIsRoss]

I went with the third. Seriously ,most of you guys said 'Truth' !?!

[ForeverDelayed]

I don't think it has to do with AIM or IMs or anything of that sort. Before they had computers, do you really think people read a vast majority more? No, of course not. Now, I'm sure people might have read more, but it wasn't a huge majority.

Also, no matter what era you grew up in, some people just don't want to read.
You're probably right, but at the same time I doubt AIM is helping anyone's attention spans. I guess I'm just weird though, even when I was a little kid I always loved to read, and so did most of my friends. Mind you, we never read any of the books that were assigned in school, but we read :-p

[ForeverDelayed]

I went with the third. Seriously ,most of you guys said 'Truth' !?!
I would've gone with the third option, but I don't like the way it's worded:

"A wonderfully imaginative collection of short stories written thousands of years ago to help simplify and explain things average people during that era could not understand"

For starters, not all the books of the Bible are short stories. You have stories, myths, geneologies, collections of sayings, fables, poetry, a few actual historical records, letters, and an apocolyptic.

Secondly, to say that they were written to simplify and explain things that people then couldn't understand is one of the most arrogant things I've read on this forum. Do we really think people were complete morons and that we're so much more intelligent that we can grasp these heavy concepts that they couldn't? If anyone has studied Jewish theology and philosophy it will become clear that there were some incredibly brilliant minds living in the middle east in the first century. And to say that the Bible was written to explain things to people of the time completely misses the point. It was written to explain spiritual and eternal concepts and truths in a way that would transcend their time and culture. The authors of the Bible knew what they were doing - by writing things the way they did they insured that people of various cultures and eras would be able to read these stories and find something they could relate to, which would then get them thinking about a deeper reality. Did the idiots of 6000 BC need the story of Cain and Abel to explain to them how jealousy and lying and murder were wrong? Or rather, have people throughout the centuries been able to read the story and relate to the emotions and the trials and the failures of the characters and be inspired to think deeper about the human condition?

So to sum up for the short attention span peeps, if the third choice was worded differently I might be inclined to choose it. But as it is, it's not very accurate, extremely arrogant, and just pretty stupid overall. I didn't pick a choice, because I don't think any of them accurately represents what the Bible is. See my first post in this thread for my opinion as to what the correct choice would be.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

You're probably right, but at the same time I doubt AIM is helping anyone's attention spans. I guess I'm just weird though, even when I was a little kid I always loved to read, and so did most of my friends. Mind you, we never read any of the books that were assigned in school, but we read :-p

I agree there haha

[BruisedxBroken]

I would've gone with the third option, but I don't like the way it's worded:

"A wonderfully imaginative collection of short stories written thousands of years ago to help simplify and explain things average people during that era could not understand"

For starters, not all the books of the Bible are short stories. You have stories, myths, geneologies, collections of sayings, fables, poetry, a few actual historical records, letters, and an apocolyptic.

Secondly, to say that they were written to simplify and explain things that people then couldn't understand is one of the most arrogant things I've read on this forum. Do we really think people were complete morons and that we're so much more intelligent that we can grasp these heavy concepts that they couldn't? If anyone has studied Jewish theology and philosophy it will become clear that there were some incredibly brilliant minds living in the middle east in the first century. And to say that the Bible was written to explain things to people of the time completely misses the point. It was written to explain spiritual and eternal concepts and truths in a way that would transcend their time and culture. The authors of the Bible knew what they were doing - by writing things the way they did they insured that people of various cultures and eras would be able to read these stories and find something they could relate to, which would then get them thinking about a deeper reality. Did the idiots of 6000 BC need the story of Cain and Abel to explain to them how jealousy and lying and murder were wrong? Or rather, have people throughout the centuries been able to read the story and relate to the emotions and the trials and the failures of the characters and be inspired to think deeper about the human condition?

So to sum up for the short attention span peeps, if the third choice was worded differently I might be inclined to choose it. But as it is, it's not very accurate, extremely arrogant, and just pretty stupid overall. I didn't pick a choice, because I don't think any of them accurately represents what the Bible is. See my first post in this thread for my opinion as to what the correct choice would be.

PS I molest young boys.

For someone who didn't actually participate in the poll, you sure love to run a shit stream out of that mouth of yours (or rather, with those fingers). The poll questions were done tongue in cheek, as are most of the posts I contribute. They weren't meant to be the end all of biblical, historical fact. I'd have to assume that most people got it, you obviously not included. And you have the nerve to call me arrogant? Read that last line you typed one more time. No, not the unfortunate PS confession (which was terrible, but entirely beside the point), but the one I took the time to highlight for you. You take yourself way too seriously dude, and if that right there isn't a prime example of pure pompousness and arrogance, I don't know what is...

[CTMarshall]

I went with the third. Seriously ,most of you guys said 'Truth' !?!

Well, alot of people are Christian who, of course, believe The Bible. It's not that outlandish.

[drewziph]

Well, alot of people are Christian who, of course, believe The Bible. It's not that outlandish.
america will learn one day.

[blindrider529]

For someone who didn't actually participate in the poll, you sure love to run a shit stream out of that mouth of yours (or rather, with those fingers). The poll questions were done tongue in cheek, as are most of the posts I contribute. They weren't meant to be the end all of biblical, historical fact. I'd have to assume that most people got it, you obviously not included. And you have the nerve to call me arrogant? Read that last line you typed one more time. No, not the unfortunate PS confession (which was terrible, but entirely beside the point), but the one I took the time to highlight for you. You take yourself way too seriously dude, and if that right there isn't a prime example of pure pompousness and arrogance, I don't know what is...
What are you whining about? He's brought a lot of depth and interaction into this thread.

I don't mean to be mean. So sorry if that's offensive.

[BruisedxBroken]

What are you whining about? He's brought a lot of depth and interaction into this thread.

I don't mean to be mean. So sorry if that's offensive.

So I guess everyone is missing the point entirely, huh? It's a shame, I really didn't think this community took itself (and religion) so seriously. For the last time, this poll was done in semi-jokingly, tongue in cheek fashion. Wasn't it obvious? How could anyone not get that!? If you really want a serious debate about religion, I'm sure the AP forums have atleast a couple of appropriate outlets...

[blindrider529]

So I guess everyone is missing the point entirely, huh? It's a shame, I really didn't think this community took itself (and religion) so seriously. For the last time, this poll was done in semi-jokingly, tongue in cheek fashion. Wasn't it obvious? How could anyone not get that!? If you really want a serious debate about religion, I'm sure the AP forums have atleast a couple of appropriate outlets...
no...I understand your point. I giggled at the choices! I just don't see a reason to lash out at people who have decided to create a more in depth discussion.

I think you're just being too sensitive to remarks about the choices given in the poll. I was fine with them. :-)

[BruisedxBroken]

no...I understand your point. I giggled at the choices! I just don't see a reason to lash out at people who have decided to create a more in depth discussion.

I think you're just being too sensitive to remarks about the choices given in the poll. I was fine with them. :-)

Actually, I was fine with everything until that douchebag ForeverDelayed decided to call me stupid and arrogant. I mean, I don't *think* I'm stupid, and I'm certainly not arrogant, so it kind of pissed me off. It's not my fault he didn't get the bigger picture facetiousness, and if he really thought any of this poll was cause for serious debate, he's even more clueless than I initially thought. God, I hope I'm not still an AP member at 30...

[alcoholandirony]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/krizzle8/bible2.jpg


http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

[airik625]

A series of fictional tales designed to explain the world and on a deeper level allow it's readers to think their lives are not meaningless.

What he said.

[alcoholandirony]

Can anyone explain to me why The Bible is the infallible word of God?

[CTMarshall]

Can anyone explain to me why The Bible is the infallible word of God?

no...not really, but can you explain why it isn't?

[baron162]

60% of you are godless heathens. burn baby, burn.

[alcoholandirony]

no...not really, but can you explain why it isn't?

Because it depicts tales that contradict many well established scientific truths in the fields of biology, astrology, and geology. It endorses slavery, stoning, and misogyny. It has not lived up to its promises (i.e. "prayer" is fake. Jesus will not give you whatever you want no matter how hard you pray, even though he promises everything in the Bible.) It provides a lacking description of the origin of language.

The list goes on...

[Brenden]

How about a collection of story's that teach people to live good lives and not be dicks

Think about all these christians and catholics who have lived by this book for two thousand years; what would they follow if it were not for these rules to live by that the bible sets... the world could be chaos

That statement shows you put little faith in mankind as a whole, I agree the bible was created to help people live in a why that was "socially acceptable" and to help ease our natural fear of death and what comes after death. But I disagree on the notion that mankind could not have lived without the Bible, not to mention a huge flaw in you statement is how you state the past you make it seem as though there was no conflict, I know you do not mean there was none but you must accknowledg that out of religion (not only the bible and Christianity) we spawned a division so powerful we killed for it. Im making refrence to one, The Crusades. Which if you know were affectivly an excuse to murder "in God's name" while plundering the Middle East. Two, WWII. Weather you know it or not the Pope himself duing the was sided with Hitler. A good documentation of this is a research novle called "Hittler's Pope." Now you will understand that his move to side with Hitler was out of fear for "his people" but does not God and the Bible teach that all men are equal in the eyes of God? To top the cake the Pope is infallabel, exemption (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05706a.htm) or immunity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07690a.htm) from liability to error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) or failure (def. from a source biased infavor http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) i.e. cant be wrong in matters of the Church. But are his actions the right thing? And these actions all happened on the Bible's "watch." The Bible is no more an answer to mankind then a a squirt gun is to a house fire.

Mankind is human and will make mistakes but we are cappiable of learning from these mistakes and correcting them that is the beauty of it all we are the change weather we know it or not. The keys to life are not in a book or scroll from many years past but, they are in us. We control our action and thus the outcome.

[Brenden]

60% of you are godless heathens. burn baby, burn.

and if you were truly of your religion you would accept that and not pass judgment, that is for your "God" to decide.

[ForeverDelayed]

Actually, I was fine with everything until that douchebag ForeverDelayed decided to call me stupid and arrogant. I mean, I don't *think* I'm stupid, and I'm certainly not arrogant, so it kind of pissed me off. It's not my fault he didn't get the bigger picture facetiousness, and if he really thought any of this poll was cause for serious debate, he's even more clueless than I initially thought. God, I hope I'm not still an AP member at 30...
Well let's get one thing straight... I never called you arrogant, I said that one of the choices in your poll was phrased arrogantly. Big difference in my opinion. I don't know you as a person, so I don't know if you're arrogant or not. I also didn't call you stupid, I called that choice stupid. I never attacked you as a person, if you took it that way I'm sorry, but re-read what I wrote and you might see it differently. I can definitely see the tongue-in-cheek nature of your poll choices. But the truth is that what you phrased probably just as a silly question to ruffle some feathers is actually the way a lot of people out there do think. Even though you're just messing around here, people have a lot of misconceptions, and just because someone addresses those things more seriously doesn't mean they're clueless. Your poll is a joke, I get it. It's not really funny, and not edgy enough to be shocking or offensive, it just comes off as a typical misconception about these sort of things, so I stepped in and said what I believe for anyone who might be seriously questioning the Bible or religion or whatever. Why does that make me clueless? Why does that make me arrogant? More importantly, why do you care? And whether you agree or not, I still feel that the mentality that says the people of a past era couldn't understand things so people had to dumb it down into cute little stories IS a very arrogant mentality.

As for me not participating in the poll and still talking shit, if you actually read any of my posts you would understand that the whole reason I didn't participate is because I don't agree with any of the choices. To contribute something to the discussion, rather than just saying "none of the above" I went into detail as to why I didn't agree with the choices, and what I believe is closer to the truth. Perhaps I came off a little heavy handed and over-serious when I did that, but there was nothing arrogant about what I wrote either. It's the same as any other poll, if someone asks which of a handful of bands is your favorite and you reply that they all suck and then name your favorite, does that make you arrogant? But seriously... if someone doesn't agree with the choices in a poll, is it better for them not to vote and then explain what they would have prefered, or to vote for something they don't agree with just for the sake of having participated?

So you just wanted a nice tongue-in-cheek poll with no serious discussion? Well sorry, excuse me for finding a topic I have some experience with and going with it. Like I said in one of my previous posts, there are other people here who are interested in a more meaningful discussion. I don't see why that would offend you any more than any other thread hijacking. It happens all the time, a thread is started with x purpose and a page later it's gone off in a completely different direction. No one forces you to read anything, and you said yourself you weren't interested in reading these replies, so why are you getting your panties in a bunch over it? If you just want a nice shits and giggles thread, then just read those responses and ignore the more in depth ones.

And what exactly does my age have to do with anything? I guess since I'm a few years older than the average person here I'm not cool? I'm someone just like you, someone who is a big music fan and likes to discuss things. But I guess since this forum has punk in the name it has to be all about youth or something, sorry I didn't catch that. Well, no matter how old I get, I'll still be listening to the sort of music I like, and I'll still be looking for people who also love the same kind of music and want to chat. I guess I missed the memo that said at 25 I should've gotten an SUV and moved to the suburbs and bought the new Nickelback album and stopped using the internet. I guess I'll just have to delete my account here and go watch an ER repeat or something, sorry to have upset your little youthful punk world.

[ForeverDelayed]

That statement shows you put little faith in mankind as a whole, I agree the bible was created to help people live in a why that was "socially acceptable" and to help ease our natural fear of death and what comes after death. But I disagree on the notion that mankind could not have lived without the Bible, not to mention a huge flaw in you statement is how you state the past you make it seem as though there was no conflict, I know you do not mean there was none but you must accknowledg that out of religion (not only the bible and Christianity) we spawned a division so powerful we killed for it. Im making refrence to one, The Crusades. Which if you know were affectivly an excuse to murder "in God's name" while plundering the Middle East. Two, WWII. Weather you know it or not the Pope himself duing the was sided with Hitler. A good documentation of this is a research novle called "Hittler's Pope." Now you will understand that his move to side with Hitler was out of fear for "his people" but does not God and the Bible teach that all men are equal in the eyes of God? To top the cake the Pope is infallabel, exemption (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05706a.htm) or immunity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07690a.htm) from liability to error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) or failure (def. from a source biased infavor http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) i.e. cant be wrong in matters of the Church. But are his actions the right thing? And these actions all happened on the Bible's "watch." The Bible is no more an answer to mankind then a a squirt gun is to a house fire.

Mankind is human and will make mistakes but we are cappiable of learning from these mistakes and correcting them that is the beauty of it all we are the change weather we know it or not. The keys to life are not in a book or scroll from many years past but, they are in us. We control our action and thus the outcome.
You make some good points. Also let's not forget that humanity existed quite some time without the Bible, and Christianity existed for quite some time before it spread across the world. If we're going to use the old "Bible as a moral guide" vs. "complete chaos" argument, we really need to frame it in the greater context of religion in general. Religion has existed as long as mankind has been knowledgeable enough to comprehend it. Every religion was formed with the purpose of behavior modification, for one reason or another. The choice isn't the Bible vs. chaos, but all of religion vs. chaos. We've only framed things in relation to Christianity because the majority of the people who post here have grown up in western nations with a Christian heritage and that's what is most familiar to them. But without the vedas or the Qu'ran or the Bhagvad Gita or the lotus sutra or countless other religious texts we'd have the same basic situation. On the one hand, you're right, we can't underestimate mankind and assume that without the Bible (or any other religion) that we'd have chaos. But at the same time, we can't underestimate religion, which has been one of mankind's most brilliant and enduring inventions, and has definitely played a part in controlling and modifying people. But I'm guessing you already know and agree with this, I'm just restating things for emphasis.

I totally agree with you about the Crusades. I think that was one of the most disgusting periods in all of Christian history. It really sickens me to even read about some of what went on and how it was considered honorable and worthy of eternal rewards. Of course we also had the Inquisition and countless other wars in the name of God. I don't think any of this discredits religion however, it just proves one of the central tenants of almost every religion on the planet - that men are selfish and self serving above all. Religion hasn't been able to cure us of this, and when a group of religious people do something completely horrible that's not religion's fault, it's theirs. As for WWII, (this is completely subjective I think) I've always seen that more of an act of cowardice. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Catholic Church wanted to openly condemn Hitler, but they were afraid of what he would do to them. I have absolutely no respect for people of religious conviction who won't listen to that conviction and stand up for what they know to be right, but it's definitely not the same as saying they supported or endorsed it either. I'm sure they hated Hitler just as much as everyone else, they were just too concerned about their own asses to stand up and say anything.

I think you're onto something when you say "The keys to life are not in a book or scroll from many years past but, they are in us." But I would add to that the purpose of scriptures in any religion is to cause people to look inward and point to these keys that are inside of us. Some people can search themselves without any outside aid and find the strength to learn from their mistakes and observations and experiences. But for those who can't, the stories of countless others who had similar struggles and mistakes can be very helpful in helping them to find these answers. A person with bad eyesight needs glasses to be able to see things clearly. The glasses themselves aren't the answer, but they are the vehicle that helps the person to see.

[Brenden]

You make some good points. Also let's not forget that humanity existed quite some time without the Bible, and Christianity existed for quite some time before it spread across the world. If we're going to use the old "Bible as a moral guide" vs. "complete chaos" argument, we really need to frame it in the greater context of religion in general. Religion has existed as long as mankind has been knowledgeable enough to comprehend it. Every religion was formed with the purpose of behavior modification, for one reason or another. The choice isn't the Bible vs. chaos, but all of religion vs. chaos. We've only framed things in relation to Christianity because the majority of the people who post here have grown up in western nations with a Christian heritage and that's what is most familiar to them. But without the vedas or the Qu'ran or the Bhagvad Gita or the lotus sutra or countless other religious texts we'd have the same basic situation. On the one hand, you're right, we can't underestimate mankind and assume that without the Bible (or any other religion) that we'd have chaos. But at the same time, we can't underestimate religion, which has been one of mankind's most brilliant and enduring inventions, and has definitely played a part in controlling and modifying people. But I'm guessing you already know and agree with this, I'm just restating things for emphasis.

I totally agree with you about the Crusades. I think that was one of the most disgusting periods in all of Christian history. It really sickens me to even read about some of what went on and how it was considered honorable and worthy of eternal rewards. Of course we also had the Inquisition and countless other wars in the name of God. I don't think any of this discredits religion however, it just proves one of the central tenants of almost every religion on the planet - that men are selfish and self serving above all. Religion hasn't been able to cure us of this, and when a group of religious people do something completely horrible that's not religion's fault, it's theirs. As for WWII, (this is completely subjective I think) I've always seen that more of an act of cowardice. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Catholic Church wanted to openly condemn Hitler, but they were afraid of what he would do to them. I have absolutely no respect for people of religious conviction who won't listen to that conviction and stand up for what they know to be right, but it's definitely not the same as saying they supported or endorsed it either. I'm sure they hated Hitler just as much as everyone else, they were just too concerned about their own asses to stand up and say anything.

I think you're onto something when you say "The keys to life are not in a book or scroll from many years past but, they are in us." But I would add to that the purpose of scriptures in any religion is to cause people to look inward and point to these keys that are inside of us. Some people can search themselves without any outside aid and find the strength to learn from their mistakes and observations and experiences. But for those who can't, the stories of countless others who had similar struggles and mistakes can be very helpful in helping them to find these answers. A person with bad eyesight needs glasses to be able to see things clearly. The glasses themselves aren't the answer, but they are the vehicle that helps the person to see.


Thank you very much! I enjoy being able to discuss something with some intelligence not the whole "my god is better then your god" crap or the "Heathens." Having an open mind and the ability to remove one's self from the argument so all sides can be considered and adequately evaluated is something that has become increasingly rare in people. Your a good person in my book weather you do or don't fallow a religion if you are truly a good person.

Also to the idea of existing be for religion and the potential chaos, being religious is one thing but being spiritual is another. I believe the latter is the more necessary to become a "good person." By spiritual I put more of a emphasis on reverence and respect for life and others, not so much worship. You can pray, go to church, make donations and still be a bad person.

[alcoholandirony]

also, the ideas of virgin births, resurrection, turning water into wine, healing the sick with miracles, hell, heaven, eternal life, etc. have all been used in religions that predate Christianity. So I'm expected to believe it? No thank you.

[BruisedxBroken]

Well let's get one thing straight... I never called you arrogant, I said that one of the choices in your poll was phrased arrogantly. Big difference in my opinion. I don't know you as a person, so I don't know if you're arrogant or not. I also didn't call you stupid, I called that choice stupid. I never attacked you as a person, if you took it that way I'm sorry, but re-read what I wrote and you might see it differently. I can definitely see the tongue-in-cheek nature of your poll choices. But the truth is that what you phrased probably just as a silly question to ruffle some feathers is actually the way a lot of people out there do think. Even though you're just messing around here, people have a lot of misconceptions, and just because someone addresses those things more seriously doesn't mean they're clueless. Your poll is a joke, I get it. It's not really funny, and not edgy enough to be shocking or offensive, it just comes off as a typical misconception about these sort of things, so I stepped in and said what I believe for anyone who might be seriously questioning the Bible or religion or whatever. Why does that make me clueless? Why does that make me arrogant? More importantly, why do you care? And whether you agree or not, I still feel that the mentality that says the people of a past era couldn't understand things so people had to dumb it down into cute little stories IS a very arrogant mentality.

As for me not participating in the poll and still talking shit, if you actually read any of my posts you would understand that the whole reason I didn't participate is because I don't agree with any of the choices. To contribute something to the discussion, rather than just saying "none of the above" I went into detail as to why I didn't agree with the choices, and what I believe is closer to the truth. Perhaps I came off a little heavy handed and over-serious when I did that, but there was nothing arrogant about what I wrote either. It's the same as any other poll, if someone asks which of a handful of bands is your favorite and you reply that they all suck and then name your favorite, does that make you arrogant? But seriously... if someone doesn't agree with the choices in a poll, is it better for them not to vote and then explain what they would have prefered, or to vote for something they don't agree with just for the sake of having participated?

So you just wanted a nice tongue-in-cheek poll with no serious discussion? Well sorry, excuse me for finding a topic I have some experience with and going with it. Like I said in one of my previous posts, there are other people here who are interested in a more meaningful discussion. I don't see why that would offend you any more than any other thread hijacking. It happens all the time, a thread is started with x purpose and a page later it's gone off in a completely different direction. No one forces you to read anything, and you said yourself you weren't interested in reading these replies, so why are you getting your panties in a bunch over it? If you just want a nice shits and giggles thread, then just read those responses and ignore the more in depth ones.

And what exactly does my age have to do with anything? I guess since I'm a few years older than the average person here I'm not cool? I'm someone just like you, someone who is a big music fan and likes to discuss things. But I guess since this forum has punk in the name it has to be all about youth or something, sorry I didn't catch that. Well, no matter how old I get, I'll still be listening to the sort of music I like, and I'll still be looking for people who also love the same kind of music and want to chat. I guess I missed the memo that said at 25 I should've gotten an SUV and moved to the suburbs and bought the new Nickelback album and stopped using the internet. I guess I'll just have to delete my account here and go watch an ER repeat or something, sorry to have upset your little youthful punk world.

Hmm, well I thought is was funny. Must have been that damn arrogance again. I probably think my shit doesn't stink either, huh? As for edgy? You're more than welcome to participate in my upcoming baby rape questionnare. It'll be great; You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll discover that infantile pedophilia is indeed a trained behavior. Well, you didn't have those feelings before, did you? Mmhmm...

Oh, and I like Nickelback. A lot. And ER is dope. And I had an SUV, but I sold it for a sedan when gas prices got too high. <----Serious. My friday nights consist of a quiet evening in with my special lady friend watching old hallmark movies on that color television set my grandson bought me. So don't worry, I definitely think you're cool. Way cool...

[blindrider529]

As for edgy? You're more than welcome to participate in my upcoming baby rape questionnare.

haha :uh:

[mikeyystyles]

For someone who didn't actually participate in the poll, you sure love to run a shit stream out of that mouth of yours (or rather, with those fingers). The poll questions were done tongue in cheek, as are most of the posts I contribute. They weren't meant to be the end all of biblical, historical fact. I'd have to assume that most people got it, you obviously not included. And you have the nerve to call me arrogant? Read that last line you typed one more time. No, not the unfortunate PS confession (which was terrible, but entirely beside the point), but the one I took the time to highlight for you. You take yourself way too seriously dude, and if that right there isn't a prime example of pure pompousness and arrogance, I don't know what is...


Do not make polls if you do not know what the fuck you are talking about or can not handle someone ripping you apart. This guy knows what he is talking about and took the time to explain a lot of it to all us. And please write something back to me, attempting to make fun of me. Please.

[BruisedxBroken]

Do not make polls if you do not know what the fuck you are talking about or can not handle someone ripping you apart. This guy knows what he is talking about and took the time to explain a lot of it to all us. And please write something back to me, attempting to make fun of me. Please.

I will continue to make polls. However, they probably won't be religious (been there, done that)
You're right, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, atleast not as it pertains to the bible. And I never claimed to. This poll and it's questions were obviously done half-heartedly, not at all meant to boast my sweet biblical knowledge.
I can definitely handle people ripping me apart, just as long as they lube up first.
That "guy" does indeed know what he's talking about, and I never once knocked him for it. However, when the attacks became personal (or what i perceived to be personal), I had to reply.
I'm glad you learned something through his various explanations, and more over, I'm happy to have inadvertently contributed an outlet for such a deep, factual conversation.
So I wrote you back, but I didn't make fun of you. Hope that's okay...

[ForeverDelayed]

Hmm, well I thought is was funny. Must have been that damn arrogance again. I probably think my shit doesn't stink either, huh? As for edgy? You're more than welcome to participate in my upcoming baby rape questionnare. It'll be great; You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll discover that infantile pedophilia is indeed a trained behavior. Well, you didn't have those feelings before, did you? Mmhmm...

Oh, and I like Nickelback. A lot. And ER is dope. And I had an SUV, but I sold it for a sedan when gas prices got too high. <----Serious. My friday nights consist of a quiet evening in with my special lady friend watching old hallmark movies on that color television set my grandson bought me. So don't worry, I definitely think you're cool. Way cool...
Okay so how about this.....

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I don't know you, I don't know your style, and the same goes for you about me. This post here seriously made me lol. I'm sorry you took my attacks to be on you and not on the concepts that you were half jokingly representing. I'm sorry if I went a little over the top in any of my criticisms. In all seriousness, you should know by now that if you start a thread about something controversial that people feel strongly about, people will take things seriously, and sometimes humor doesn't translate that well on the internet. So I say we should quit arguing and get on that baby rape poll already :-p

[ForeverDelayed]

Thank you very much! I enjoy being able to discuss something with some intelligence not the whole "my god is better then your god" crap or the "Heathens." Having an open mind and the ability to remove one's self from the argument so all sides can be considered and adequately evaluated is something that has become increasingly rare in people. Your a good person in my book weather you do or don't fallow a religion if you are truly a good person.

Also to the idea of existing be for religion and the potential chaos, being religious is one thing but being spiritual is another. I believe the latter is the more necessary to become a "good person." By spiritual I put more of a emphasis on reverence and respect for life and others, not so much worship. You can pray, go to church, make donations and still be a bad person.
I very much agree with what you're saying. But I'm not a fan of the word spiritual. I'm not sure what it was originally coined to mean, but most times when people use it these days they're basically describing religion but don't want to be associated with the bad connotations the word religion has. You can pray and go to church and still be spiritual, just like you can never pray and never go to church and still be religious.

[ForeverDelayed]

also, the ideas of virgin births, resurrection, turning water into wine, healing the sick with miracles, hell, heaven, eternal life, etc. have all been used in religions that predate Christianity. So I'm expected to believe it? No thank you.
I get annoyed at the whole "uniqueness of Jesus" campaign that the church always tries to wage. Truth is, all of the elements of the Jesus story are old hat. In fact a lot of them might have been inserted into the stories just to make it easier for people to convert to Christianity from their various pagan religions. But when you take a non-literal interpretation of the Bible that's not even an issue. The stories told about Jesus aren't meant to be taken literally, they're meant to be observations about humanity, the world, etc. I believe Jesus was an actual person, and I agree with just about every word of his teachings, but I honestly have no idea if the things ascribed to him really happened or not, and I don't care anymore. By reading about the life of Christ, I am inspired to search deeper and contemplate the deeper issues of life.

[BruisedxBroken]

Okay so how about this.....

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I don't know you, I don't know your style, and the same goes for you about me. This post here seriously made me lol. I'm sorry you took my attacks to be on you and not on the concepts that you were half jokingly representing. I'm sorry if I went a little over the top in any of my criticisms. In all seriousness, you should know by now that if you start a thread about something controversial that people feel strongly about, people will take things seriously, and sometimes humor doesn't translate that well on the internet. So I say we should quit arguing and get on that baby rape poll already :-p

Although I hate to admit it, you've clearly sparked something here in the way of intelligent discussion that I simply could not (even if I tried). People were actually appreciative of your knowledge, and frankly, that's pretty awesome. I've got to respect you for that.

So...
Good job! :thumbup: <---- and ^ serious...

[baron162]

and if you were truly of your religion you would accept that and not pass judgment, that is for your "God" to decide.

Sorry, forgot to hit the sarcasm button.

[Curtis&BemisRok]

I'm intrigued that truth is winning. hmm...

[Post-me]

Why can't people not live after "rules" and "traditions" set by education and experience instead of the ones set by a fictional sectarian full of archaic thoughts ? It is futile and too simple to believe in superiorities and stuff just because they "teach good behavior" (hem...misogyny, homophobia, sectarism, enslavement and the list goes on...).
Just because this book talks about some good things/behaviors that are logical, people forget how the rest is so shitty.

[schmalz]

Yes... there is an invisible man in the sky who watches everything and hears everything. He is almighty, all powerful... yet he keeps asking for more and more money. He's all these things and can't handle money. hmm...

Also.. if you don't listen to him and follow his 10 rules, you will be condemned to hell where you burn for eternity

Yet... HE LOVES YOU.

hahahah

[ForeverDelayed]

Although I hate to admit it, you've clearly sparked something here in the way of intelligent discussion that I simply could not (even if I tried). People were actually appreciative of your knowledge, and frankly, that's pretty awesome. I've got to respect you for that.

So...
Good job! :thumbup: <---- and ^ serious...
Thanks man, glad we could end this argument in a civil way. No hard feelings. :-)

[ForeverDelayed]

Why can't people not live after "rules" and "traditions" set by education and experience instead of the ones set by a fictional sectarian full of archaic thoughts ? It is futile and too simple to believe in superiorities and stuff just because they "teach good behavior" (hem...misogyny, homophobia, sectarism, enslavement and the list goes on...).
Just because this book talks about some good things/behaviors that are logical, people forget how the rest is so shitty.
I personally don't think anyone has forgotten the ugly stuff in the Bible. I think what has helped it to last so long is that it shows a full spectrum of human life - everything from honorable and pure people to the most disgusting fuckups imaginable. Sometimes it appears to gloss over horrible things, other times it appears to make a big deal out of a little screwup. Some characters are drawn so that you can't help but pity them, others so you can't help but hate them. Some are shown as clear examples of how to live, others as examples of how not to live, and most are shown as a mix of both. In that way it's pretty realistic, because if we're honest with ourselves we're all a mix of good characteristics and bad, and because of this it's easy to relate to. Sometimes it takes a story to make an important truth come to life for a person, and the Bible is so full of colorful stories and characters that the lessons it attempts to teach are much more effective than a simple blunt and factual how-to book.

[George-Michael]

lol @ the majority being "true"

[speakhandsforme]

Have fun, kids...

hahaha, you've made some lame ass poll threads but this one was pure genius: a perfect way to jumpstart a fiasco. props.

[speakhandsforme]

A series of fictional tales designed to explain the world and on a deeper level allow it's readers to think their lives are not meaningless.
we might have a winner...

But I'd go:
A somewhat inconsistent compilation of tales whose relevancy is well past its expiration date due to the fact that, having been translated and restructured many many times (and thus, changing with the improvisions of each individual author), contains stories (which were once designed to promote a moral order and revolutionary societal obediance) that are shadows of their former selves. It is a series of tales that hosts promotions of love, hate, bigotry, ignorance, brilliance, fear, bravery, warranted faith, blind faith, physical impossibilities, and big boats among other things.

[BruisedxBroken]

hahaha, you've made some lame ass poll threads but this one was pure genius: a perfect way to jumpstart a fiasco. props.

Can we try paying that compliment again, sans the back-handed douche-y-ness? (...)

[Yes. And?]

Surprised at the results. I picked the second-to-last option.

[alaskan]

a great way for stories, i like to think the they are mostly allusionary stories to teach lessons

[callingallcars]

The Bible, especially the New Testament is kind of like different stories all mashed together. Especially when you take Peter and/or Paul's (Saul) testament. You have Peter, Jesus' right hand man, basically best friend.. (kind of like Biggie is to Jesus, P Diddy is to Peter). Then you have this guy Paul (Saul) who really never met Jesus, but was or could have been Jesus' biggest fan. Well Peter and Paul both write their testimony about their experiences among several others with Jesus and then 1,000 years later Emporer Constantine wants a book published telling the story of Christianity. So what you really get from the Bible is, one mans story (Peter) of his best friend who he most likely tries playing up to be more almighty then anyone to ever walk the earth. And then some crazy Fan (Paul) who was a firm believer that Jesus was the son of God. Now what I take from all this... remember there is no internet, tv, newspaper, just spoken word (Remember how the game telephone works). That over a thousand years the stories of Jesus became greater and greater, that when they were finally printed into the Bible they became more like Epic Tales.

actually saul did meet jesus. it was a stipulation to be an apostle. on the road to damascus, he met jesus and was blinded. and then his name was changed to paul. and the acounts of the new testament were letters written to different churches and collected in a book. now over the years they were translated into different languages and im sure some words and meanings of words were changed. but the bible is a lot more than what you said. good try though.

[Neo Cassady]

None of the above.

How about... A collection of various genres of literature that must be understood and interpretted within the context of their particular genre, the culture which they came from, the intended purpose, and the intended audience, which were later compiled into a scriptural canon by the Roman Catholic Church.

I vote for this.

[eleven eleven]

lol who said truth?

[BruisedxBroken]

a great way for stories, i like to think the they are mostly allusionary stories to teach lessons

Well, I'd prefer to call them illusionary stories myself. But, you know...tomato, tomaato...

[theripped0ne]

it's all based on astrology. watch zeitgeist. it'll explain everything.

[amylyn]

It's good to see the majority is Truth.
:]

[Johnnybot2000]

a piece of shite is what it is.

[stendhal]

"Truth."

that answer is laughable at best.

[kevinrocks409]

truth

[KyleMcr]

bible = FICTION;

[Clambo]

all 160 people that said that it is truth, are going to hell for masturbating.

Pick up a copy of aesop's fables. It is alot more entertaining.

[coltenTALK]

One hell of a good joke.

[Tim Lincecum]

a combination of 3 and 4... definitely not 1 or 2, the only reason why someone could say that the bible is lies is if they take it literally

[jjjkman]

Jew shit will not be tolerated in any of Kareem-Abdul-Rahim-Ali-Amadimijad's threads. Take it elsewhere moneygrubber...
way to be an anti-semitic douche bag. and it seems like this pool was just created to see people fight over their religous beliefs. let people believe what they want without being criticized.

[BruisedxBroken]

way to be an anti-semitic douche bag. and it seems like this pool was just created to see people fight over their religous beliefs. let people believe what they want without being criticized.

No thanks. I just ate...

[jjjkman]

haha...i feel like a jackass :-d

[Alex DiVincenzo]

The all of the above one

[SLoT]

Oh man. Nice poll. I disagree with all of those though. Oh well.