Jesus killed children

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Jesus killed children

#81  Postby proudfootz » Jan 05, 2012 10:01 pm

Onyx8 wrote:Now you've got it.


Still doesn't justify Jesus destroying another man's livelihood, though...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Jesus killed children

#82  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » Jan 05, 2012 10:19 pm

proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:

Sure, in early April (that's around 15 Nisan) figs are generally not ripe yet, but you would definitely expect more than only leaves, namely taqsh. These taqsh can be eaten (but it was the poor man's food and not tasty) and they indicate that the fig tree is fertile. The lack of them (there was nothing but leaves) means that there would be no figs. My source on figs didn't mention that these were taqsh (not the real figs Mark refers to) so it needed a little more delving.



Interesting that you can know what people you know nothing about have or have not done.


I only say you 'apparently' didn't read the source since the source says it wasn't the season for figs full stop.

If it's not the season for figs, only someone ignorant of figs would expect to find figs on it - as Jesus is made to do in the story.


First, my translation doesn't read "it wasn't the season", so how do you expect me to read that if the translation doesn't even use "season"? The reason I made that mistake is simple, my source on figs referred to the fruits before the figs (taqsh) simply as figs. But you would expect taqsh around that time so I misread "it wasn't the time" as the source said that early April is the time for figs (while it should read taqsh or precursors). Is that clear enough?

Then, as I said, it was exactly the right season for those taqsh. Those were not out of season. And the story (if it is historical, which I doubt and you do even more) notes there was nothing but leaves. But taqsh indicate that the tree will grow figs; no taqsh, no figs. So (in the story) the tree was infertile and while you would not expect to find figs, you would expect the fig tree to have taqsh. So your "ignoramus" argument falls flat on its face.


Sadly, all the translations I have seen say it was not the season for figs:

http://bible.cc/mark/11-13.htm

That's a problem with translations, I guess...


Do not worry, I don't fail to notice that you keep evading the point that the fig tree was supposed to have taqsh when Passover neared and instead keep resorting to flaccid yet completely unconvincing tricks to discredit what I say.

Now you have.

proudfootz wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

I only say you 'apparently' didn't read the source since the source says it wasn't the season for figs full stop.

If it's not the season for figs, only someone ignorant of figs would expect to find figs on it - as Jesus is made to do in the story.



No, no, you can't just read the words, you have to interpret them or it's no fun.


Yes, let's say it was a species of figs which Mark didn't know was supposed to be in season and Mark was putting in his opinion and thus was misled by Jesus's wholly correct response...


Who's speaking of a different species of fig? This would just be the common fig. Another unsubtle projection by you. Taqsh does not equal fig.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#83  Postby GakuseiDon » Jan 05, 2012 10:23 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Then, as I said, it was exactly the right season for those taqsh. Those were not out of season. And the story (if t is historical, which I doubt and you do even more) notes there was nothing but leaves. But taqsh indicate that the tree will grow figs; no taqsh, no figs. So (in the story) the tree was infertile and while you would not expect to find figs, you would expect the fig tree to have taqsh. So your "ignoramus" argument falls flat on its face.

I've seen that explanation, nearly always in apologetic sources. But even that is the case, that Jesus was expecting taqsh, why make the point that it wasn't the season for figs?

I think the point of the story is that, regardless of the season, Jesus saw the leaves and so expected to find something more than leaves. I suspect this symbolism refers to the start of Mark 11, when Jesus rides into Jerusalem seeing lots of 'leaves' spread out before him:

    8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”

Then when Jesus gets into Jerusalem, the elders reject him and plot to kill him. But again, it is possible to over-analyze.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Jan 05, 2012 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#84  Postby GakuseiDon » Jan 05, 2012 10:25 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Now you've got it.


Still doesn't justify Jesus destroying another man's livelihood, though...

Don't be sad! I suspect no fig-trees were harmed in the production of the story. :cheers:
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#85  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » Jan 05, 2012 10:34 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Then, as I said, it was exactly the right season for those taqsh. Those were not out of season. And the story (if t is historical, which I doubt and you do even more) notes there was nothing but leaves. But taqsh indicate that the tree will grow figs; no taqsh, no figs. So (in the story) the tree was infertile and while you would not expect to find figs, you would expect the fig tree to have taqsh. So your "ignoramus" argument falls flat on its face.

I've seen that explanation, nearly always in apologetic sources. But even that is the case, that Jesus was expecting taqsh, why make the point that it wasn't the season for figs?

I think the point of the story is that, regardless of the season, Jesus saw the leaves and so expected to find something more than leaves. I suspect this symbolism refers to the start of Mark 11, when Jesus rides into Jerusalem seeing lots of 'leaves' spread out before him:

    8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”

Then when Jesus gets into Jerusalem, the elders reject him and plot to kill him. But again, it is possible to over-analyze.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#86  Postby proudfootz » Jan 05, 2012 10:47 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Do not worry, I don't fail to notice that you keep evading the point that the fig tree was supposed to have taqsh when Passover neared and instead keep resorting to flaccid yet completely unconvincing tricks to discredit what I say.


Turgidity and flaccidity don't enter into it, mate.

The source seems to say it wasn't the season for figs, and I made an observation about this which is backed up by every translation I could find.

It's not a 'trick' to simply tell the truth - don't be afraid.



Sorry sprechen not de deutsch.

proudfootz wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

I only say you 'apparently' didn't read the source since the source says it wasn't the season for figs full stop.

If it's not the season for figs, only someone ignorant of figs would expect to find figs on it - as Jesus is made to do in the story.



No, no, you can't just read the words, you have to interpret them or it's no fun.


Yes, let's say it was a species of figs which Mark didn't know was supposed to be in season and Mark was putting in his opinion and thus was misled by Jesus's wholly correct response...


Who's speaking of a different species of fig? This would just be the common fig. Another unsubtle projection by you. Taqsh does not equal fig.


Markus 11:13
Het Boek (HTB)
13In de verte zag Hij een vijgeboom die in blad stond. Hij liep ernaar toe om te zien of er vijgen aanzaten, maar er zaten alleen maar bladeren aan. Het was nog niet de tijd voor vijgen.


(from your link)

Not finding taqsh in the gibberish above.

But Vijgen is Dutch for Figs...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#87  Postby GakuseiDon » Jan 05, 2012 10:59 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.

True. I have to laugh at the "That bad Jesus, killing the poor innocent fig tree!" comments. :lol:
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Jesus killed children

#88  Postby proudfootz » Jan 05, 2012 11:23 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.

True. I have to laugh at the "That bad Jesus, killing the poor innocent fig tree!" comments. :lol:


I have to laugh at the pretzel logic some have to do to salvage anything from this silly story...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#89  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » Jan 05, 2012 11:30 pm

proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Do not worry, I don't fail to notice that you keep evading the point that the fig tree was supposed to have taqsh when Passover neared and instead keep resorting to flaccid yet completely unconvincing tricks to discredit what I say.


Turgidity and flaccidity don't enter into it, mate.

The source seems to say it wasn't the season for figs, and I made an observation about this which is backed up by every translation I could find.

It's not a 'trick' to simply tell the truth - don't be afraid.


You seem to miss the point, it was too early for figs, but it was the right time for the edible but untasty buds or tarqsh.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:


No, no, you can't just read the words, you have to interpret them or it's no fun.


Yes, let's say it was a species of figs which Mark didn't know was supposed to be in season and Mark was putting in his opinion and thus was misled by Jesus's wholly correct response...


Who's speaking of a different species of fig? This would just be the common fig. Another unsubtle projection by you. Taqsh does not equal fig.


Markus 11:13
Het Boek (HTB)
13In de verte zag Hij een vijgeboom die in blad stond. Hij liep ernaar toe om te zien of er vijgen aanzaten, maar er zaten alleen maar bladeren aan. Het was nog niet de tijd voor vijgen.


(from your link)

Not finding taqsh in the gibberish above.

But Vijgen is Dutch for Figs...


Nobody said the text from gMark said "taqsh". >_> The Greek actually doesn't have "figs" in its thrice; Jesus was not looking for figs, but whether there was anything on it, but there were only leaves... How often is Russell's silly dig going to be reheated? >_>

GakuseiDon wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.

True. I have to laugh at the "That bad Jesus, killing the poor innocent fig tree!" comments. :lol:


I suspect they are secretly advocating the aims of this website. :naughty2:

But fair's fair, proudfootz's point is (aside the odd point of "ignorance" which has been debunked too often now) that Jesus was cruel to destroy somebody's livelihood, not simply for killing the fig tree.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#90  Postby proudfootz » Jan 06, 2012 2:44 am

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Do not worry, I don't fail to notice that you keep evading the point that the fig tree was supposed to have taqsh when Passover neared and instead keep resorting to flaccid yet completely unconvincing tricks to discredit what I say.


Turgidity and flaccidity don't enter into it, mate.

The source seems to say it wasn't the season for figs, and I made an observation about this which is backed up by every translation I could find.

It's not a 'trick' to simply tell the truth - don't be afraid.


You seem to miss the point, it was too early for figs, but it was the right time for the edible but untasty buds or tarqsh.


I see - so the translators were wrong to think the author(s) of gMark meant that Jesus was looking for figs. Maybe they got this idea because the reason given for Jesus not finding what he was after was because it was the wrong season for figs. Good to know.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Yes, let's say it was a species of figs which Mark didn't know was supposed to be in season and Mark was putting in his opinion and thus was misled by Jesus's wholly correct response...


Who's speaking of a different species of fig? This would just be the common fig. Another unsubtle projection by you. Taqsh does not equal fig.


Markus 11:13
Het Boek (HTB)
13In de verte zag Hij een vijgeboom die in blad stond. Hij liep ernaar toe om te zien of er vijgen aanzaten, maar er zaten alleen maar bladeren aan. Het was nog niet de tijd voor vijgen.


(from your link)

Not finding taqsh in the gibberish above.

But Vijgen is Dutch for Figs...


Nobody said the text from gMark said "taqsh". >_> The Greek actually doesn't have "figs" in its thrice; Jesus was not looking for figs, but whether there was anything on it, but there were only leaves... How often is Russell's silly dig going to be reheated? >_>
Sorry, I thought maybe you were trying to say something about what information might be found in gMark.

GakuseiDon wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.

True. I have to laugh at the "That bad Jesus, killing the poor innocent fig tree!" comments. :lol:


I suspect they are secretly advocating the aims of this website. :naughty2:

But fair's fair, proudfootz's point is (aside the odd point of "ignorance" which has been debunked too often now) that Jesus was cruel to destroy somebody's livelihood, not simply for killing the fig tree.


:thumbup:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#91  Postby John P. M. » Jan 06, 2012 2:46 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:The problem is that it is possible to over-analyze these passages, to the point that any interpretation is possible.

You can say that again.

GakuseiDon wrote:
    Seeley (2000) observes:

    "Thus, as Jesus and his disciples return to Jerusalem (apparently) from Bethany, he tells them that, if they have faith, they can successfully command "this mountain" to be taken up and cast into the sea (Mark 11:23). What is "this mountain"? Bethany is to the southeast of Jerusalem, and so as one approached the city, the temple mount would stand out prominently."

    This observation is also echoed by Duff (1992), who sees the mountain saying as further condemnation of the Temple.


So... to be slightly facetious, what I've learned from this thread is that figs are not figs, trees are not trees, and mountains are not mountains. Fair enough - that's what parables are all about.

However - if we glue all this information together, it seems we get a passage where Jesus says to his disciples (according to gMatthew) "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only condemn the Jewish people like I just did, but even if you wish to have the temple destroyed, it will happen."

Seems kinda weird to me.

Another thing that occurred to me: if we go for the 'condemnation of the Jews for their lacking faith and works' explanation, it seems that Christian Zionists / Restorationists could use it to say "See? The fig tree was not in season yet, but there will come a time again, as with all fig trees", while those who would say the Jews were condemned forever could say "No no - the fig tree was whithered from the root, and died completely - there's no way".
User avatar
John P. M.
RS Donator
 
Posts: 2913
Male

Country: Norway
Norway (no)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#92  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » Jan 06, 2012 3:05 pm

John P. M. wrote:Another thing that occurred to me: if we go for the 'condemnation of the Jews for their lacking faith and works' explanation, it seems that Christian Zionists / Restorationists could use it to say "See? The fig tree was not in season yet, but there will come a time again, as with all fig trees", while those who would say the Jews were condemned forever could say "No no - the fig tree was whithered from the root, and died completely - there's no way".


That does indeed happen, usually with some other mentions of fig trees in the Bible thrown in. Here's an example of a rapture-ready site that says "Israel will be given a second chance".
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#93  Postby GakuseiDon » Jan 06, 2012 9:53 pm

John P. M. wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:This observation is also echoed by Duff (1992), who sees the mountain saying as further condemnation of the Temple.

So... to be slightly facetious...

Well... why? Is there any reason to be even slightly facetious on this? I don't believe this story is true anymore than you do. I'm not trying to 'explain away' anything, just trying to get behind what the author meant by this story. It does seem to be a social sin here to treat discussions of the Bible seriously, even if you think the whole thing is rubbish.

John P. M. wrote:However - if we glue all this information together, it seems we get a passage where Jesus says to his disciples (according to gMatthew) "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only condemn the Jewish people like I just did, but even if you wish to have the temple destroyed, it will happen."

Seems kinda weird to me.

Not weird at all. Remember that Jesus DOES 'tear the Temple down' according to the NT. That's one reason to suspect that by "this mountain", Jesus is referring to the Temple Mount. And early gentile Christians did seem to feel that the Jewish people were 'locked out' by rejecting the Messiah. So the Mark author put those words into Jesus' mouth to support this.

John P. M. wrote:Another thing that occurred to me: if we go for the 'condemnation of the Jews for their lacking faith and works' explanation, it seems that Christian Zionists / Restorationists could use it to say "See? The fig tree was not in season yet, but there will come a time again, as with all fig trees", while those who would say the Jews were condemned forever could say "No no - the fig tree was whithered from the root, and died completely - there's no way".

True. I've read that this passage was used by people in the past to justify their anti-semitism.
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#94  Postby Doubtdispelled » Jan 07, 2012 11:17 am

GakuseiDon wrote:It does seem to be a social sin here to treat discussions of the Bible seriously, even if you think the whole thing is rubbish.


GakuseiDon wrote:So the Mark author put those words into Jesus' mouth to support this.

Leaving aside the fact that the former sentence doesn't even really make sense...

People have a hard time taking discussions of the babble seriously for lots of reasons, one of which is admirably demonstrated by the latter sentence quoted. Social sin doesn't even get a look in. It doesn't need to.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11744

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#95  Postby nunnington » Jan 07, 2012 11:25 am

Doubtdispelled wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:It does seem to be a social sin here to treat discussions of the Bible seriously, even if you think the whole thing is rubbish.


GakuseiDon wrote:So the Mark author put those words into Jesus' mouth to support this.

Leaving aside the fact that the former sentence doesn't even really make sense...

People have a hard time taking discussions of the babble seriously for lots of reasons, one of which is admirably demonstrated by the latter sentence quoted. Social sin doesn't even get a look in. It doesn't need to.


But by using the term 'babble', I assume you are saying that you cannot take these issues seriously, nor do you expect to be taken seriously? I suppose it's a fair exchange.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3911

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Jesus killed children

#96  Postby Doubtdispelled » Jan 07, 2012 12:21 pm

nunnington wrote:
But by using the term 'babble', I assume you are saying that you cannot take these issues seriously, nor do you expect to be taken seriously? I suppose it's a fair exchange.

I used the term 'babble' not only because it's a common term here for the book which, according to most theists, is supposed to contain the 'truth' about god and Jesus, plus all the guidance we will ever need in order to be accepted into 'heaven', but also because it does appear to be nothing but babble. Written by people who, according to GakuseiDon, feel free to put words into the mouths of the characters they are writing about. Words that are supposed to be those of the messiah. You know, the son of god.

Obviously then, it follows that if a 'believer' feels free to tell us that, then I feel free to call it the babble.

As for being taken seriously by those who 'believe', who gives a stuff?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11744

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#97  Postby GakuseiDon » Jan 07, 2012 12:43 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
nunnington wrote:
But by using the term 'babble', I assume you are saying that you cannot take these issues seriously, nor do you expect to be taken seriously? I suppose it's a fair exchange.

I used the term 'babble' not only because it's a common term here for the book which, according to most theists, is supposed to contain the 'truth' about god and Jesus, plus all the guidance we will ever need in order to be accepted into 'heaven', but also because it does appear to be nothing but babble. Written by people who, according to GakuseiDon, feel free to put words into the mouths of the characters they are writing about.

You're not interested in looking at the Bible even from a secular perspective, which is what we are doing on this thread? What do you think of those non-theists who are interested in the Bible in that way -- are they wasting their time, do you think?
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#98  Postby Animavore » Jan 07, 2012 12:48 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with the allegorical interpretation (which does not seem like overanalysing to me). The reason I dwell on this point is that some people here overanalyse it into something that is definitely wrong and keep doing so despite being corrected repeatedly.

True. I have to laugh at the "That bad Jesus, killing the poor innocent fig tree!" comments. :lol:

I had to laugh myself when I wrote it brought it up. I don't believe this actually happened. It's called 'irony'.

EDIT
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38803
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#99  Postby nunnington » Jan 07, 2012 12:55 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
nunnington wrote:
But by using the term 'babble', I assume you are saying that you cannot take these issues seriously, nor do you expect to be taken seriously? I suppose it's a fair exchange.

I used the term 'babble' not only because it's a common term here for the book which, according to most theists, is supposed to contain the 'truth' about god and Jesus, plus all the guidance we will ever need in order to be accepted into 'heaven', but also because it does appear to be nothing but babble. Written by people who, according to GakuseiDon, feel free to put words into the mouths of the characters they are writing about. Words that are supposed to be those of the messiah. You know, the son of god.

Obviously then, it follows that if a 'believer' feels free to tell us that, then I feel free to call it the babble.

As for being taken seriously by those who 'believe', who gives a stuff?


That's fine by me. I enjoy having serious adult discussions about religion, atheism, theology, the Bible, etc., and much to my relief and pleasure, some atheists also do. If you don't, then fairy nuff.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3911

Print view this post

Re: Jesus killed children

#100  Postby Doubtdispelled » Jan 07, 2012 12:56 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
nunnington wrote:
But by using the term 'babble', I assume you are saying that you cannot take these issues seriously, nor do you expect to be taken seriously? I suppose it's a fair exchange.

I used the term 'babble' not only because it's a common term here for the book which, according to most theists, is supposed to contain the 'truth' about god and Jesus, plus all the guidance we will ever need in order to be accepted into 'heaven', but also because it does appear to be nothing but babble. Written by people who, according to GakuseiDon, feel free to put words into the mouths of the characters they are writing about.

You're not interested in looking at the Bible even from a secular perspective, which is what we are doing on this thread? What do you think of those non-theists who are interested in the Bible in that way -- are they wasting their time, do you think?

I'm not interested personally, I don't have enough time to get involved in in-depth discussions. As for whether others are wasting their time, no, I don't think they are if that's what they really want to do.

But why has this turned into a discussion about me and what I think?

Let me see. Could it be to divert attention away from the fact that we have just been informed that the scribes of the bible probably made things up?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11744

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest