The truth of religion (or not)

silverharp

Cabaal

silverharp wrote: »

It's the Dinosaur...right?
It's the only thing thats actually real!

Orion

That is correct. Even unicorns make an appearance and seemingly "the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature" according to https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/unicorns-in-the-bible/

https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/guide-dinosaurs/?sku=10-2-456& - and dinosaurs are imaginary as well.

Imagine this: millions of years ago, before man evolved, monstrous lizards ruled the earth and were suddenly wiped out by a huge asteroid that blackened the sky... at least that's the popular evolutionary idea. This new Guide to Dinosaurs from the Institute for Creation Research boldly challenges the evolutionary model that pervades the study of dinosaurs. It presents a biblically minded interpretation of the evidence, backed up by solid science.

silverharp

Orion wrote: »

That is correct. Even unicorns make an appearance and seemingly "the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature" according to https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/unicorns-in-the-bible/

https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/guide-dinosaurs/?sku=10-2-456& - and dinosaurs are imaginary as well.

I took a flier that it had been well researched, some of them look more like D&D characters

Digital Solitude

Cabaal wrote: »

It's the Dinosaur...right?
It's the only thing thats actually real!

Lot of talking snakes around Ennis

cumulonimbus

Cabaal wrote: »

It's the Dinosaur...right?
It's the only thing thats actually real!

There's a behemoth eating holes in my woolen socks

Peregrinus

Witches exist. My neighbour is a witch.

Leviathans are real. "Leviathan" is a transliteration of Hebrew word for any large sea creature. In modern Hebrew, it's the word for a whale.

"Cockatrice" turns up in Wyclif's translation, and in the King James, as a translation of Hebrew word meaning "viper". Vipers are real.

"Behemoth" is a translation of a Hebrew word for a large animal whose precise identity is unknown. It could be an elephant, a rhinoceros, a hippopotamus or a buffalo. Either way, behomoths are real.

"Giants", as featured in the bible, are real. Goliath, for example, is described as a giant, and his height is given as "four cubits and a span", which would be about 2 metres. Humans of this height do exist.

"Unicorn" turns up in the King James translation, but it translates a Hebrew word which means "wild ox". The wild ox is now extinct (and was extinct when the King James translation was prepared) but it was undoubtedly real.

Absolam

Sounds like cumulonimbus should be pretty darn worried about whatever is eating holes in his socks so...

cumulonimbus

Absolam wrote: »

Sounds like cumulonimbus should be pretty darn worried about whatever is eating holes in his socks so...

I thought behemoth was a big moth!

marienbad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Witches exist. My neighbour is a witch.

Leviathans are real. "Leviathan" is a transliteration of Hebrew word for any large sea creature. In modern Hebrew, it's the word for a whale.

"Cockatrice" turns up in Wyclif's translation, and in the King James, as a translation of Hebrew word meaning "viper". Vipers are real.

"Behemoth" is a translation of a Hebrew word for a large animal whose precise identity is unknown. It could be an elephant, a rhinoceros, a hippopotamus or a buffalo. Either way, behomoths are real.

"Giants", as featured in the bible, are real. Goliath, for example, is described as a giant, and his height is given as "four cubits and a span", which would be about 2 metres. Humans of this height do exist.

"Unicorn" turns up in the King James translation, but it translates a Hebrew word which means "wild ox". The wild ox is now extinct (and was extinct when the King James translation was prepared) but it was undoubtedly real.

So we are just left with the talking snake and no dinosaurs

smacl

marienbad wrote: »

So we are just left with the talking snake and no dinosaurs

Pretty sure that angels don't exist either. Or God*



(* I know he's not in the picture, but I'm taking him too on the count of him being omnipresent and all)

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Witches exist. My neighbour is a witch.

Leviathans are real. "Leviathan" is a transliteration of Hebrew word for any large sea creature. In modern Hebrew, it's the word for a whale.

"Cockatrice" turns up in Wyclif's translation, and in the King James, as a translation of Hebrew word meaning "viper". Vipers are real.

"Behemoth" is a translation of a Hebrew word for a large animal whose precise identity is unknown. It could be an elephant, a rhinoceros, a hippopotamus or a buffalo. Either way, behomoths are real.

"Giants", as featured in the bible, are real. Goliath, for example, is described as a giant, and his height is given as "four cubits and a span", which would be about 2 metres. Humans of this height do exist.

"Unicorn" turns up in the King James translation, but it translates a Hebrew word which means "wild ox". The wild ox is now extinct (and was extinct when the King James translation was prepared) but it was undoubtedly real.

So what you are saying is that errors appear in the bible, based on translation.
But if it's the word of God there should be no errors.

Given that the Bible is document written from verbal tales of illiterate "observers" how can we believe that there were no transcription errors then or afterwards, seeing as we have proof of exactly that happening above?

The whole Bible is a truth fails immediately on this

Peregrinus

If you're saying "this proves the invalidity of simplistic biblical literalism", then you'll get no argument from me. Or from most believers.

If you're saying "this proves the bible is not the word of God" then you'll need to complete your argument before I can say anything intelligent about it.

The unstated premise is that "word of God" = "can validly and accurately be read in a simplistic literalistic fashion". But that's not obviously true; there's nothing in the words WORD and OF and GOD to compel that reading. So to make your argument stand up you need to justify this premise.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're saying "this proves the invalidity of simplistic biblical literalism", then you'll get no argument from me. Or from most believers.

If you're saying "this proves the bible is not the word of God" then you'll need to complete your argument before I can say anything intelligent about it.

The unstated premise is that "word of God" = "can validly and accurately be read in a simplistic literalistic fashion". But that's not obviously true; there's nothing in the words WORD and OF and GOD to compel that reading. So to make your argument stand up you need to justify this premise.

So the Bible is littered with inaccuracies and csn not be verified but it is still the instruction manual for an omnipotent being, who eternally punishes people for misreading his book??

Alrighty then

Peregrinus

Hey, I'm trying to reason with Cork_exile; I'm pointing to the gaps in his argument, and inviting him to complete them. Is that not entirely reasonable?

If, when faced with a reasonable attempt to explore the logic of an anti-religious argument, you respond with memes which assert that you can't reason with religious people, it's not the religious people who end up looking like they're unable to reason. Just sayin'.

What gaps?
The Bible is strewn with obvious errors and the human bias of oral traditions yet it's meant to be followed?

If god allows transcription errors how can we know that there are not entire fabrications?

Either the Bible is to be taken literally or not, more picking and choosing it seems.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

So the Bible is littered with inaccuracies and csn not be verified but it is still the instruction manual for an omnipotent being, who eternally punishes people for misreading his book??

Alrighty then

Well, being reasonable for a moment:

Silverharp's post mentions various things that appear in the bible, but it doesn;t establish that what the bible says about them is inaccurate. Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth mentions the crocoduck, and even includes an illustration of one. The crocoduck doesn't exist. Does this prove that Dawkins book "fails immediately"? No, it doesn't; to make that judgment you'd have to explore why Dawkins mentions the crocoduck, and what he said about it, and what his ultimate point is.

Same goes for the various creatures the silverharp mentioned. We've already seen that several of them, presumed to be imaginary, are in fact real. We could also note that several of those which are admittedly imaginary are mentioned in scripture, but are not presented as real.

The argument that, merely by mentioning an imaginary creature, the bible "fails immediately" assumes that the only authentic, valid way to read the bible is as a kind of divinely inspired journalism. Is it unreasonable of me to point out that you are making this assumption, but not justifying it? Is it unreasonable of me to point out that, when it comes to evaluating scripture, you are keeping some very strange intellectual company? You and, say, the Westboro Baptist Church share the same simplistic view of how scripture should be read. I don't know why you share their view, and I certainly don't know why you would expect me to share their view.

Likewise, I've never said that the bible is an instruction manual. I've never said that God eternally punishes people for misreading his book. Neither of these are mainstream Christian positions but they, or something very like them, are the positions of the likes of the Westboro Baptists. If you positioned yourself as criticising the Westboro Baptists and their like I'd say yes, absolutely, you're right. But when you position yourself as criticisng the Bible, reason compels me to point out that you are assuming the correctness of the Westboro Baptist way of reading it. And I think that's a fairly glaring weakness in your argument.

No you specifically called out errors in translation and transcription.

Errors in the book of god, where all your religion comes from.
What does god need with a broken book?


So tell me if the Bible is non literal, what's your criteria for ignoring sections?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

No you specifically called out errors in translation and transcription.

Only a small minority of Christians consider the bible to be inerrant in a simplistic literalist sense.
Only a small minority of that minority consider translations of the bible to be similarly inerrant (and they'll usually pick just one translation in which to repose their simplistic faith).

Deleted User wrote: »

Errors in the book of god, where all your religion comes from.
What does god need with a broken book?

If you can find any Christian at all who thinks that God needs the bible, now would be a good time to name him.

Cork_exile, these are your positions that you're attacking. They're not positions characteristic of Chrisianity, or of religious belief in general.

Deleted User wrote: »

So tell me if the Bible is non literal, what's your criteria for ignoring sections?

What makes you think I ignore sections of it?

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you think I ignore sections of it?

It's a fairly safe assumption to be fair.
It would be practically impossible to live without ignoring parts of it.

First examples off the top of my head - I'd be willing to bet money that you are wearing mixed fabrics right now this second - I'd bet my life that you have done at some stage. The bible says you shouldn't do that.

I can't imagine you've offered up too many burnt offerings or anything of that sort either. (Overcooked dinners don't count:D)

I'd guess you put up a tree at Christmas. Also verboten!

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you think I ignore sections of it?

Because that is what you are doing.
You decide which parts are "real" and which parts are allegory or fantasy, I am asking for your selection criteria

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Because that is what you are doing.
You decide which parts are "real" and which parts are allegory or fantasy, I am asking for your selection criteria

You're making up positions and attributing them to me, and then demanding that I explain them.

Like I said, Cork_exile, if you find you can't reason with Christians could the cause possibly be - now, don't get angry - could the cause possibly be that you have yet to learn to reason at all?

Peregrinus

Not to shock you or anything, Worztron, but I think the butt of that particular joke is supposed to be Dawkins.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're making up positions and attributing them to me, and then demanding that I explain them.

Like I said, Cork_exile, if you find you can't reason with Christians could the cause possibly be - now, don't get angry - could the cause possibly be that you have yet to learn to reason at all?

Did you say that there are errors in the bible?

Where do you get your information for your religion from?

If you get your religious information from the bible, which you admit has errors, why do you assume that the information which you CHOOSE to believe is not error strewn (or manipulated)?

What are your criteria for deciding if something is a parable/allegory/incorrect/correct?


Christians are cherry picking based on evolution as the text says no. Again Christians are choosing to state that the entire front portion of their book is really not literal, but every thing in the latter portions is to be accepted as fact??

It seems that the moment that science proves that something is not as it in the bible, Christians say "well that part is only a guide, what has science not yet explained? Yeah well that part is still fact, in the bible"

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you say that there are errors in the bible?

Depends on what you mean by "errors". But there are certainly inconsistent readings of the bible, and many of them are erroneous.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where do you get your information for your religion from?

I get my information for my religion from a variety of sources.

I think there may be a misconception underlying this question. Christians don't get their religion from the bible, generally speaking. They get the bible from their religion.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you get your religious information from the bible, which you admit has errors, why do you assume that the information which you CHOOSE to believe is not error strewn (or manipulated)?

Isn't that question equally applicable to any information that anyone gets from any text? I could put the same question to you in relation to your o own beliefs; could the beliefs you have chosen be based on erroneous or manipulated information?

Deleted User wrote: »

What are your criteria for deciding if something is a parable/allegory/incorrect/correct?

Again, this isn't a question that only Christians face. If you read any text at all, in order to engage with it on any level you're going to have to make a judgment about what genre it represents. Most readers develop the criti8cal skills to do this; a few - among whom we must number the Westboro Baptist Church and, on the evidence of this thread, yourself - never do.

Deleted User wrote: »

Christians are cherry picking based on evolution as the text says no. Again Christians are choosing to state that the entire front portion of their book is really not literal, but every thing in the latter portions is to be accepted as fact??

No.

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems that the moment that science proves that something is not as it in the bible, Christians say "well that part is only a guide, what has science not yet explained? Yeah well that part is still fact, in the bible"

Again, no. You're operating out of a simple binary, in which every text is either "fact" or "a guide". Literature is a little more sophisticated than that. There are many genres of writing in which facticity is not really the point. Did Little Red Riding Hood really go into the woods on her own? That's not the point of the story. Same goes for Jonah and the whale; Balaam and his ass; Eve and the serpent; Abraham and Isaac; and lots more. Whatever truth or value is contained in theses stories doesn't really depend on facticity.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, no. You're operating out of a simple binary, in which every text is either "fact" or "a guide". Literature is a little more sophisticated than that. There are many genres of writing in which facticity is not really the point. Did Little Red Riding Hood really go into the woods on her own? That's not the point of the story. Same goes for Jonah and the whale; Balaam and his ass; Eve and the serpent; Abraham and Isaac; and lots more. Whatever truth or value is contained in theses stories doesn't really depend on facticity.

And that's all fine and dandy, no objection to any of it - except that nobody ever suggested making laws
against wolves or in favour of hunters based on what goes down in Little Red Riding Hood.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "errors". But there are certainly inconsistent readings of the bible, and many of them are erroneous.


I get my information for my religion from a variety of sources.

I think there may be a misconception underlying this question. Christians don't get their religion from the bible, generally speaking. They get the bible from their religion.


Isn't that question equally applicable to any information that anyone gets from any text? I could put the same question to you in relation to your o own beliefs; could the beliefs you have chosen be based on erroneous or manipulated information?


Again, this isn't a question that only Christians face. If you read any text at all, in order to engage with it on any level you're going to have to make a judgment about what genre it represents. Most readers develop the criti8cal skills to do this; a few - among whom we must number the Westboro Baptist Church and, on the evidence of this thread, yourself - never do.


No.


Again, no. You're operating out of a simple binary, in which every text is either "fact" or "a guide". Literature is a little more sophisticated than that. There are many genres of writing in which facticity is not really the point. Did Little Red Riding Hood really go into the woods on her own? That's not the point of the story. Same goes for Jonah and the whale; Balaam and his ass; Eve and the serpent; Abraham and Isaac; and lots more. Whatever truth or value is contained in theses stories doesn't really depend on facticity.

You stated yourself that there are errors in translation, transcription.

You get your religion from what other sources so?

Circular logic, get bible from religion use Bible to teach new members about religion.
Again without the book, where would you get your religious doctrine?


No, scientific texts are based on repeatable evidence. Rigorously investigated, to the best knowledge available, and hold no "vauge" meaning. Also completely discarded as false, if evidence contravenes.


Genres lie in fiction. Religion posits itself as truth.

Yes, you can speak about westboro all you want, but many Christian sects (even on this island) believe so.
Someone must be cherry picking then.

So the bible is literature? All Christ's ghostwritten stories are just that so? Stories?
Is all the bible fake stories with meaningful messages, or truthful events or a mixture of both?
If both what's the criteria for determining this?

Digital Solitude

Lads this back and forth is truly hilarious, I'm really splitting my side's laughing but if ye wouldn't mind keeping the essays for elsewhere I think we'd all appriciate it

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, you can speak about westboro all you want, but many Christian sects (even on this island) believe so.
Someone must be cherry picking then.

Of course people are cherry-picking. But that's an observation about the people, not about the texts from which they cherry-pick.

For that matter, you're cherry-picking yourself (as I've already pointed out more than once).

Deleted User wrote: »

So the bible is literature?

Yes, it's literature. Seriously, we have to argue about this? How would it not be literature?

Deleted User wrote: »

Is all the bible fake stories with meaningful messages, or truthful events or a mixture of both?

What's with the "both"? The bible is a collection of texts by different authors written over a very long times. (I really struggle to believe that you don't already know this.) Given that, you'd expect these texts to be written in a wide variety of genres and, right enough, a glance through any bible will confirm that they are. You have this strange compulsion to reduce things to simple binaries; if not X, then Y. It never seems to cross your mind that there could be other possibilities. Most of the bible consists of texts which do not pretend to be either fake stories or truthful events. If you have managed not to notice this, it begins to explain why you cherish such misconceptions about the role the bible plays in Christianity.

Deleted User wrote: »

If both what's the criteria for determining this?

There's no point in asking the same question again and again and ignoring the answer you are offered each time. The techniques employed in making judgments about the genre of biblical texts are not different from the techniques employed in making judgments about the genre of non-biblical texts. If you really, truly have no idea what they are it's not religion you need to be looking into; it's English literature and basic critical thinking. And I think we would be trespassing on the tolerance of other boardies if we embarked on that disucussion in this thread.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

And that's all fine and dandy, no objection to any of it - except that nobody ever suggested making laws
against wolves or in favour of hunters based on what goes down in Little Red Riding Hood.

The social function of the Little Red Riding Hood story is to inculcate particular attitudes towards sexual violence against women (as I'm sure you know). And if you think our laws and policies regarding violence against women are unfluenced by the way we bring our children up to think about violence against women, well, I have news for you.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

The social function of the Little Red Riding Hood story is to inculcate particular attitudes towards sexual violence against women (as I'm sure you know). And if you think our laws and policies regarding violence against women are unfluenced by the way we bring our children up to think about violence against women, well, I have news for you.

I think you need to read what I wrote all the same.

Stories like LRRH reflect society's attitudes to morality, at least the society which invented them.

Are you saying the bible is nothing more than the same sort of invention?
If in fact you are, then I agree - but as I said, nobody would dream of citing LRRH as a reason for not passing laws favorable to wolves.

(My understanding is that it is actually more a justification of restricting little girls' freedom, not about preventing little boys from eating girls.)

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you need to read what I wrote all the same.

Stories like LRRH reflect society's attitudes to morality, at least the society which invented them.

And the society which continues to treasure them, and to pass them on?

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying the bible is nothing more than the same sort of invention?
If in fact you are, then I agree - but as I said, nobody would dream of citing LRRH as a reason for not passing laws favorable to wolves.

(My understanding is that it is actually more a justification of restricting little girls' freedom, not about preventing little boys from eating girls.)

I agree with that reading (though I wouldn't confine it to "little girls"). But in the present context my point is that the meaning and significance of the LRRH story, and the effect it has on attitudes and so on laws today, doesn't depend on whether it's fictional or not.

And the same is true for lots of mythic stories. Did Abraham take Isaac up a mountain to sacrifice him, but end up sacrificing a sheep instead? In terms of what this story has to say about the attitudes of the society that told it toward child sacrifice, it doesn't matter. You may like what the story means, or you may not like it, or you may disagree with my interpretation or agree with it, but in terms of what matters about this story, factuality doesn't really enter into it.

As for bibilical stories being invoked in support of laws or public policy, well, I don't know of much anti-snake legislation based on the Garden of Eden story, do you? Obviously some people invoke the bible in support of, say, anti-gay legislation, but the passages they invoke are typically not stories. You may or may not like biblical passages that say, e.g. that homosexuality is an abomination, but you can't refute them by saying that they are made-up stories. They're not stories at all, they're not based on stories, they don't appeal to stories in support of what they say. Again, factuality just isn't an issue here.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the society which continues to treasure them, and to pass them on?


I agree with that reading (though I wouldn't confine it to "little girls"). But in the present context my point is that the meaning and significance of the LRRH story, and the effect it has on attitudes and so on laws today, doesn't depend on whether it's fictional or not.

And the same is true for lots of mythic stories. Did Abraham take Isaac up a mountain to sacrifice him, but end up sacrificing a sheep instead? In terms of what this story has to say about the attitudes of the society that told it toward child sacrifice, it doesn't matter. You may like what the story means, or you may not like it, or you may disagree with my interpretation or agree with it, but in terms of what matters about this story, factuality doesn't really enter into it.

As for bibilical stories being invoked in support of laws or public policy, well, I don't know of much anti-snake legislation based on the Garden of Eden story, do you? Obviously some people invoke the bible in support of, say, anti-gay legislation, but the passages they invoke are typically not stories. You may or may not like biblical passages that say, e.g. that homosexuality is an abomination, but you can't refute them by saying that they are made-up stories. They're not stories at all, they're not based on stories, they don't appeal to stories in support of what they say. Again, factuality just isn't an issue here.

You're ignoring the fact that for centuries the bible was taken as literally true, and that our laws are to a large extent based on it.

The fact that it is itself a reflection of a deeper morality that is inherent to human society makes the detail of cause and effect almost inextricable, but there are plenty of historical examples (good and bad) of legislators actually quoting lines from the bible to justify their stance on all sorts of issues. There are none for LRRH. :rolleyes:

You're using a double standard that is all too common concerning the bible, and is basically what you were accused of earlier, iirc, namely cherry picking.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that for centuries the bible was taken as literally true, and that our laws are to a large extent based on it.

Well, two thoughts.

In the first place, biblical histories were taken as true which we now take not to be true. But, really, it was always the case that they were taken to be true in the absence of better evidence. The parts of the bible which suggest that the world is flat, for example, were never taken by Christians to be literally true, since the roundness of the Earth has been known since ancient times. Augustine of Hippo points out how silly it would be to insist on a round earth based on the scriptures; that's in the fifth century. What has changed now is that we have a lot more and better evidence, and therefore many stories which were previously taken to be true no longer are.

In the second place, the parts of the bible which biblical fundamentalists take to be literally true - the Creation, the Flood, the OT histories generally - are not the parts which have influenced our laws. Law and policy on flood defences, for example, owe nothing to the Story of Noah. As already pointed out, we don't have anti-snake legislation on the strength of the Garden of Eden story. And so forth. The moral codes given in the Bible aren't factual; they don't even pretend to be factual. "Thou shalt not kill" is not a factual statement, and whatever validity you think that moral principle - or any other moral principle in scriptures - doesn't have can't be criticised or evaluated in terms of the factuality or otherwise of the passage.

Should women avoid walking down dark alleys late at night? Should they dress "modestly" and avoid drinking too much in public? You can argue that one way or the other but, either way, observing that the LRRH story is completely fictional is not going to strengthen your argument even the tiniest bit. And the same goes for arguments over whether Judeo-Christian moral principles should be reflected in our laws. Observing that snakes don't really speak, or that the whole world has never been covered by a flood, contributes nothing at all to that question.

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact that it is itself a reflection of a deeper morality that is inherent to human society makes the detail of cause and effect almost inextricable, but there are plenty of historical examples (good and bad) of legislators actually quoting lines from the bible to justify their stance on all sorts of issues. There are none for LRRH. :rolleyes:

Are you arguing that if LRRH has not been quoted by legislators, this means it has had no influence?

On the question of legislators quoting lines from the bible, feel free actually to engage with what they say. But observeing that entirely different statment from a different work by a different author written at a different time is non-factual is not much of an engagement with what they say.

volchitsa wrote: »

You're using a double standard that is all too common concerning the bible, and is basically what you were accused of earlier, iirc, namely cherry picking.

Sorry, but how am I cherry-picking? Unless "cherry-picking" means "doesn't view the world like the Westboro Baptist Church does", I honestly do not see that I am cherry-picking. Can you give me a specific example?

So the Bible is fiction?

That's what I get from all your answers

volchitsa

Sorry, but how am I cherry-picking? Unless "cherry-picking" means "doesn't view the world like the Westboro Baptist Church does", I honestly do not see that I am cherry-picking. Can you give me a specific example?

Yeah look this really is off topic on what is meant to be a funny thread.

If you're genuinely puzzled (which I doubt, if you're being intellectually honest about what is literally true (at any time in our history) vs not true/allegorical ; or about something used to justify legislation vs used to illustrate ideas, etc) then you can cut and paste any part of this exchange on one of the relevant faith threads and we can take it from there.

But I don't think we should continue it on this thread or the mods will get annoyed. Justifiably.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah look this really is off topic on what is meant to be a funny thread.

If you're genuinely puzzled (which I doubt, if you're being intellectually honest about what is literally true (at any time in our history) vs not true/allegorical ; or about something used to justify legislation vs used to illustrate ideas, etc) then you can cut and paste any part of this exchange on one of the relevant faith threads and we can take it from there.

But I don't think we should continue it on this thread or the mods will get annoyed. Justifiably.

How about this...?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

So the Bible is fiction? That's what I get from all your answers

robindch

Posts moved over from funny-ha-ha thread to not-funny thread!

Worztron

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to shock you or anything, Worztron, but I think the butt of that particular joke is supposed to be Dawkins.

No, it's directed at your lot. You seem to enjoy getting butt-hurt by coming to this thread (edit: that was the old 'The 'Funny (ha, ha)' side of religon' thread).

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Witches exist. My neighbour is a witch.

Leviathans are real. "Leviathan" is a transliteration of Hebrew word for any large sea creature. In modern Hebrew, it's the word for a whale.

"Cockatrice" turns up in Wyclif's translation, and in the King James, as a translation of Hebrew word meaning "viper". Vipers are real.

"Behemoth" is a translation of a Hebrew word for a large animal whose precise identity is unknown. It could be an elephant, a rhinoceros, a hippopotamus or a buffalo. Either way, behomoths are real.

"Giants", as featured in the bible, are real. Goliath, for example, is described as a giant, and his height is given as "four cubits and a span", which would be about 2 metres. Humans of this height do exist.

"Unicorn" turns up in the King James translation, but it translates a Hebrew word which means "wild ox". The wild ox is now extinct (and was extinct when the King James translation was prepared) but it was undoubtedly real.

I agree, and I can add to that.

"Demons" exist; my sisters toddler is a little demon.

"Angels" exist; Angel is a centrefold.

"Cherubs" exist; I saw one in the plaster ceiling of a stately home once.

ScumLord

The bible can fix all it's problems if it just ads a chapter at the end where Mary wakes up suddenly and realises it was all a dream.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

Witches exist. My neighbour is a witch..

Why haven't you killed her yet

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

Witches exist. My neighbour is a witch.

.

Snap, mine too. A gay witch in fact. If this was a game of witch top trumps, I'd be feeling pretty smug right now:D

looksee

I'm an awitchest. Is someone a witch just because they claim to be one?

sbsquarepants

Pretty much.

What makes someone a catholic, a hindu, or a pastafarian and so on.
There's possibly some mumbo jumbo or other involved, there usually is, but at it's core it's basically say you are on and you are, say you aren't one and you aren't.

looksee

But the things you list are more belief systems; the equivalent would surely be Wicca. A person who claims to be a witch is claiming powers or abilities. You could say you were a Catholic priest, or the saviour of mankind, it would not make it so.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I'm an awitchest. Is someone a witch just because they claim to be one?

I believe weighing the same as a duck is also a prerequisite.

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

I believe weighing the same as a duck is also a prerequisite.

Like these ducks ?