Man convicted for mocking Jesus, the Pope and Muslims.

[Pothole]

LightningMcSteve said:

Fill your boots

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

I was quite interested until I got to this emotive bullst:

"He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals"and then scrolling back to the top I notice the author doesn't know the difference between advice and advise.

"NASTY JESUS & STUPID ADVISE"

Edited by Pothole on Sunday 25th April 14:34

[tinman0]

Pothole said:

LightningMcSteve said:

Fill your boots

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

I was quite interested until I got to this emotive bullst:

"He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals"and then scrolling back to the top I notice the author doesn't know the difference between advice and advise.

"NASTY JESUS & STUPID ADVISE"

The problem with that Skeptically article is that the person who is reading the excerpts from the Bible doesn't understand the message. So they present them devoid of the full meaning.

Matthew 8:22 "let the dead bury the dead" for instance.

The meaning of that is "let the "dead to those not knowing spiritual things bury the dead".

The other problem is that many people read the Bible and fail to understand that the English versions are translations. If you want to get the real meaning of the Bible, go read it in Hebrew or Greek, and you will get much closer to the text and meaning.

So the whole article is rather skewed by the rantings of someone who opened the Bible and expected to understand it. But all they are demonstrating is their own ignorance.

[Blue Meanie]

I presume you can read hebrew, greek and arabic, Tinman?

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

I presume you can read hebrew, greek and arabic, Tinman?

No, but my father did. He learned to read (and understand) both Hebrew and Greek many many years ago. He could tell you where the English translations go wrong, and even today (20 years on) he'll take apart most people over scripture. But I doubt he's stepped foot in a single church since mid 80s though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a card carrying Christian either, and the last time I stepped foot in a church....I can't even remember, but I know enough not just to dismiss the Bible outright like so many people do.

[Blue Meanie]

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

I presume you can read hebrew, greek and arabic, Tinman?

No, but my father did. He learned to read (and understand) both Hebrew and Greek many many years ago. He could tell you where the English translations go wrong, and even today (20 years on) he'll take apart most people over scripture. But I doubt he's stepped foot in a single church since mid 80s though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a card carrying Christian either, and the last time I stepped foot in a church....I can't even remember, but I know enough not just to dismiss the Bible outright like so many people do.

You don't think the age old "you need to read aramaic to know it" isn't a kop out? Could you tell us what parts of the bible are wrong? You may also want to tell the VAST majority of the bible reading folks that their copy is nonsense.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 25th April 16:21

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

You don't think the age old "you need to read aramaic to know it" isn't a kop out? Could you tell us what parts of the bible are wrong? You may also want to tell the VAST majority of the bible reading folks that their copy is nonsense.

What I'm saying is that to read the Bible properly you need to take some guidance. You can't just open the Bible, pull a verse out and say "aha - see it's all rubbish". The meaning of the Bible is in the detail in many many places.

And what book can you open, pull out three lines somewhere in the middle and profess to know everything in the book?

Seriously - why do people do this? Do you buy a Dan Brown book, flip to page 94, read three sentences and then tell everyone that it's rubbish and that the doesn't make sense? Course you don't. So why do people do that with the Bible?

[Blue Meanie]

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

You don't think the age old "you need to read aramaic to know it" isn't a kop out? Could you tell us what parts of the bible are wrong? You may also want to tell the VAST majority of the bible reading folks that their copy is nonsense.

What I'm saying is that to read the Bible properly you need to take some guidance. You can't just open the Bible, pull a verse out and say "aha - see it's all rubbish". The meaning of the Bible is in the detail in many many places.

And what book can you open, pull out three lines somewhere in the middle and profess to know everything in the book?

Seriously - why do people do this? Do you buy a Dan Brown book, flip to page 94, read three sentences and then tell everyone that it's rubbish and that the doesn't make sense? Course you don't. So why do people do that with the Bible?

I don't think people do. What DOES happen is people talk about how the bible contains passages that are somewhat barbaric. Quite often this is dismissed as "you don;t understand" or "it's not meant to be literal" or "you don't understand the context", however, often that context, understanding, etc is never explained. I've read the bible, the KJV anyway, which I would imagine most christians probably have not. Another thing that is often an atheist has not always been an atheist. Many have been religious in the past. Dismissing criticism based on these things seems a little shortsighted.

[Countdown]

tinman0 said:

What I'm saying is that to read the Bible properly you need to take some guidance. You can't just open the Bible, pull a verse out and say "aha - see it's all rubbish". The meaning of the Bible is in the detail in many many places.

And what book can you open, pull out three lines somewhere in the middle and profess to know everything in the book?

The same could be said of the Koran but try telling that to some people on here

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

I don't think people do. What DOES happen is people talk about how the bible contains passages that are somewhat barbaric. Quite often this is dismissed as "you don;t understand" or "it's not meant to be literal" or "you don't understand the context", however, often that context, understanding, etc is never explained. I've read the bible, the KJV anyway, which I would imagine most christians probably have not. Another thing that is often an atheist has not always been an atheist. Many have been religious in the past. Dismissing criticism based on these things seems a little shortsighted.

Atheists I've spoken to have been atheists from the start to be honest. I think it comes down to who you've been in contact with at the end of the day as I don't think there is a template atheist as it were.

As for explaining misconceptions in the Bible - what's the point for the most part? Most people struggle to understand that there are two books in the Bible, and which religion lives by which book. How many people think Eye for an Eye is a Christian thing for instance? And then these same people will get into a ferocious argument with you? For what? Why bother.

[Blue Meanie]

You'll notice, Tinman, that I don't start these discussions. I'm not one to initiate these things, however, if people are going to quote one particular section of the bible to 'prove' how nice the religion is, then another person is entirely able to quote another part of the bible to show the opposite. That's how these things work. For some reason people think religion is a taboo subject. We can argue all we want about politics, sports, music, etc, without the animosity you get for daring to have an anti-thesis view. Why can't people use the bible to argue with theists?

The interesting thing is that 'Jesus' says in the NT that the OT is not to be ignored, (I think we've been through this before). As you say, it depends entirely on your perspective. So, what is to say 'my' perspective is any better or worse than 'yours'? What does annoy me is when this perspective is used as an excuse for biblical barbarism. oddly enough, no-one actually explains, as I said, the context they think it should be read in.


PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 25th April 17:11

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Don't we all. It's the new religion.

[Blue Meanie]

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Don't we all. It's the new religion.

I see what you did there, but no, it's not a religion. Atheism would't be on the rise, and as vocal if it was't for the vocal religious. Since 9/11 religion has needed to be addressed. Since suicide bombers in London, religion has needed to be addressed. It is not the normal, everyday person that the vocal atheists have issue with, it is those that want to bring their religion to the forefront of politics, policy, and everyday life.

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Don't we all. It's the new religion.

I see what you did there, but no, it's not a religion. Atheism would't be on the rise, and as vocal if it was't for the vocal religious. Since 9/11 religion has needed to be addressed. Since suicide bombers in London, religion has needed to be addressed. It is not the normal, everyday person that the vocal atheists have issue with, it is those that want to bring their religion to the forefront of politics, policy, and everyday life.

A small minority who avail themselves of Islam need to be addressed, but religion as a whole doesn't.

And I'm not trying to trip you up with my comment about atheism being a new religion, but it is being promoted with the same fervor that a religious fanatic would be proud of. And the parallels are quite frightening when you look carefully at atheists and fundamentalists. The only difference is that one believes in a God and the other believes in nothing at all.

Which brings us nicely back to this atheist who got a conviction. He was told repeatedly not to push his views at people who didn't want to hear them. How is this guy different from a fundamentalist?

[Blue Meanie]

tinman0 said:

A small minority who avail themselves of Islam need to be addressed, but religion as a whole doesn't.

Maybe in the UK, but in the US it is a different story. No-one said at a whole, but extremism, and religion bleeding into politics IS an issue. think I made that clear.

And I'm not trying to trip you up with my comment about atheism being a new religion, but it is being promoted with the same fervor that a religious fanatic would be proud of. And the parallels are quite frightening when you look carefully at atheists and fundamentalists. The only difference is that one believes in a God and the other believes in nothing at all.

I suggest you watch the Intelligence squared debate regarding 'Is atheism the new fundamentalism'. Could you tell me what the atheist docrtine is? What the moral code is? What is is we follow, exactly? What are the fundamentals of atheism?

Which brings us nicely back to this atheist who got a conviction. He was told repeatedly not to push his views at people who didn't want to hear them. How is this guy different from a fundamentalist?

I agreed that the guy was an idiot, I said it many times, and the same conclusion was drawn on an atheist forum I go onto back when it was news ages ago.

Oddly, this man was arrested for his fundamentalism. If only the same was said for the religiously fundamental. As I said... The new wave of atheism is as a direct result of religious extremism, and creeping religion into peoples lives, (see Creationism in the class room, The Dover trial, religious lobby groups, etc).

[Pothole]

Countdown said:

tinman0 said:

What I'm saying is that to read the Bible properly you need to take some guidance. You can't just open the Bible, pull a verse out and say "aha - see it's all rubbish". The meaning of the Bible is in the detail in many many places.

And what book can you open, pull out three lines somewhere in the middle and profess to know everything in the book?

The same could be said of the Koran but try telling that to some people on here

at least it's still in the same language it was written in

[Pothole]

5unny said:

wtf!

Why does religion get such levels of protection in this country when other ideologies do not? The right to mock and satirise has to be absolute; there cannot be compromise on this even if people are offended.

Would someone who dropped anti-communist leaflets outside the Communist Party of Britain HQs be treated in such a way? How about mocking environmentalists at the Green Party conference?

It's mad.

Isn't satire supposed to be funny?

[LightningMcSteve]

tinman0 said:

Seriously - why do people do this? Do you buy a Dan Brown book, flip to page 94, read three sentences and then tell everyone that it's rubbish and that the doesn't make sense? Course you don't. So why do people do that with the Bible?

Well, in the case of Dan Brown, yes you can.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archive...

[clarkey318is]

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Don't we all. It's the new religion.

I see what you did there, but no, it's not a religion. Atheism would't be on the rise, and as vocal if it was't for the vocal religious. Since 9/11 religion has needed to be addressed. Since suicide bombers in London, religion has needed to be addressed. It is not the normal, everyday person that the vocal atheists have issue with, it is those that want to bring their religion to the forefront of politics, policy, and everyday life.

I wouldn't blame it on religion, I'd blame it on nutters using religion as an excuse for a personal vendetta.
As soon as religion starts to interfere in politics and day to day life then it needs to be curbed.

[LightningMcSteve]

clarkey318is said:

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Don't we all. It's the new religion.

I see what you did there, but no, it's not a religion. Atheism would't be on the rise, and as vocal if it was't for the vocal religious. Since 9/11 religion has needed to be addressed. Since suicide bombers in London, religion has needed to be addressed. It is not the normal, everyday person that the vocal atheists have issue with, it is those that want to bring their religion to the forefront of politics, policy, and everyday life.

I wouldn't blame it on religion, I'd blame it on nutters using religion as an excuse for a personal vendetta.
As soon as religion starts to interfere in politics and day to day life then it needs to be curbed.

It's even more worrying when certain said people have access to "nu-cu-lar" weapons. At least Obama has his feet more firmly on the ground than Bush did (I hope).

However, some people in the states are positively salivating at the thought of Israel lobbing a nuke into Iran. They think the End of Time is upon us and can't wait for the second coming.

[Blue Meanie]

clarkey318is said:

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

PS, I speak to a lot of atheists...

Don't we all. It's the new religion.

I see what you did there, but no, it's not a religion. Atheism would't be on the rise, and as vocal if it was't for the vocal religious. Since 9/11 religion has needed to be addressed. Since suicide bombers in London, religion has needed to be addressed. It is not the normal, everyday person that the vocal atheists have issue with, it is those that want to bring their religion to the forefront of politics, policy, and everyday life.

I wouldn't blame it on religion, I'd blame it on nutters using religion as an excuse for a personal vendetta.
As soon as religion starts to interfere in politics and day to day life then it needs to be curbed.

That's what i said.