August Berkshire, the other atheist in Minnesota (well, there are a few others), has a fine piece in the Strib on that frothy mix of morality and religion—Rabbi Shafran ought to read it.
The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it. That is why Christians themselves cannot agree on such things as masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia and the death penalty. The Bible or religion as a moral guide? With all this disagreement, how is that possible?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
As I mentioned at the start of Thursday's post, my discussion of the Friedman and Dolansky column about homosexuality in the Bible was really a prelude to discussing this essay by David Lose.
Lose seeks to persuade us that the Bible is in some sense a reliable guide to morality. Beneath the…
John Schwenkler points me to Rod Dreher's shock that religious people seem to support torture more than the non-religious:
And get this: the more often you go to church, the more pro-torture you're likely to be!
What on earth are these Christians hearing at church?! Very sad indeed.
John notes:…
For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and…
Here's a very useful document that I got from August Berkshire (you can also get this in pdf form from Minnesota Atheists): 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God. I guess he forgot to include all the convincing arguments for gods, but I'm sure some wandering delusional troll will try to provide some.…
We shall call it... Scriptorum!
Scriptorum indeed.
As I've noted before, if one cuts and pastes enough, one can make the telephone directory say anything one wants. And the religious of all persuasions seem to have a real knack for doing so.
I see I should prepare my neck for the axe, as I am doing some programming for work today.
Perhaps I should have some lobster tonight, since I'm already doomed.
False premise. People who say that you can "see just about anything you want" in the Bible are either gullible, ignorant or lying.
Well, gee... Disagreement among [conservative and liberal] Christians. Yep. That's a really solid argument against the Bible. Mmm-hmm.
Oh, wait. The Apostle Paul addressed this problem already. My bad.
Sorry, but that conservative and liberal Christians disagree with each other doesn't mean that the Bible is inconsistant. Your argument fails.
Only someone so obviously ignorant about Christ's work on this earth would ask such a question.
Sounds like you've got your own interpretation of the bible, Jason, why do you assume you're the one who's got it right?
That's two sentences, tomtom.
I don't interpret the Bible, tomtom, anymore than I would interpret the dictionary. I read it.
Oh, I fully admit that I may have some things wrong, but the things that I may have wrong are not core, unquestionable and clear doctrines of which there is no disagreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians.
Jason, how often does Jesus get quoted on the subjects of abortion, gay marriage, abstinence-only sex education, and separation of church and state? Hardly ever.
These are the four main issues that are utterly consuming the religious debate in this nation, and yet I cannot recall any of the Christian leaders involved mentioning "Christ's work on Earth". It's all Old Testament--i.e. selective use of the Bible to reinforce people's own religious and political beliefs.
Perhaps when right-wing Christians start quoting the Beatitudes more than once in a blue moon, I might start believing that your argument has a little merit. But I'm not holding my breath--heaven forbid that they honour the peacemakers or the meek.
Ephesians 6:5 also has something to say about slavery:
"5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
Perhaps Jason can explain why The Lord and Christ seem to AT LEAST tolerate (if not outright support and promote) slavery. Is slavery ok? If it isn't then explain (with sources) why you are NOT going against the Word of God?
Only someone so obviously ignorant about Christ's work on this earth would ask such a question.
I assume the answer that Jason avoids giving here is yes, since Christ commands people to follow the law of the old testament, among other things.
Oh, I fully admit that I may have some things wrong, but the things that I may have wrong are not core, unquestionable and clear doctrines of which there is no disagreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians.
You say homoousian, I say homoiousian . . . .
Jason says: "core, unquestionable and clear doctrines of which there is no disagreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians."
List those doctrines, and then explain why the others are dismissed as not being core doctrines even though they are the Word of God.
The Bible or religion as a moral guide? With all this disagreement, how is that possible?
Is there a moral guide that doesn't engender disagreement? If so, why don't we all agree on moral issues?
Religion doesn't fail as a moral guide because people disagree about it. It fails as a moral guide for other reasons.
Oh, I fully admit that I may have some things wrong,
For reasons not having to do with seeing just about anything you want, of course. I. e., the failings in your interpretations are somebody else's fault - not yours. Somebody else who doesn't see just about anything they want, of course.
but the things that I may have wrong are not core, unquestionable and clear doctrines of which there is no disagreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians.
Things that are not such things as masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia and the death penalty, of course. Maybe the majority of Christians should avoid the topics that could be seen just about any way they want. That way Mr. Berkshire won't have an opportunity to write false premises like that. (Viz., your statement: "False premise. People who say that you can 'see just about anything you want' in the Bible are either gullible, ignorant or lying.") Now shuffle on along there, little boy. Nice chatting with thee. Bye bye, now. Cheers!
Now that I've been told that Jason "does not interpret the Bible, he reads it", and that he has figured out the one correct way to interpret it (which the 'overwhelming majority' of Christians share), I know who to ask all my questions about Christianity!
Now you've acknowledged that there's disagreement between liberal and conservative Christians. Very substantial disagreement on ' such things as masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia and the death penalty.' So which side is CORRECT? Since there's evidently only one way to interpret Christian doctrine, and Christians disagree, some of them must be WRONG, who is it?
And I've heard many, many other Christians acknowledge that it's difficult to interpret the Bible. But you imply that there's no need to 'interpret' it. Are all those other Christians WRONG, Jason?
And can Liberals get into heaven, Jason?
Should we, as the Bible commands, kill the following people: disobedient sons (Deut. 21:18-21), blasphemers (Lev. 24:13-23), witches and wizards (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:27), gay men (Lev. 20:13), people who work on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), nonvirgin brides (Deut. 22:13-21), adulterers (Deut. 22:22), unfaithful fiancées (Deut. 22:23-24), non-Judeo-Christian evangelists (Deut. 13:1-10), and ex-Jews and ex-Christians who now worship other gods (Deut. 17:2-7)?
Only someone so obviously ignorant about Christ's work on this earth would ask such a question.
You, uh, didn't answer the question, Jason. Don't have an answer?
If Jason doesn't interpret what he reads out of the dictionary, he's pretty slow. There are an awful lot of politics involved in setting the definitions of words, as anyone who's ever looked up anything to do with sex or religion in the Oxford English Dictionary is well aware.
Trolls...
Someone ought to write a tretise on the subject of amorality. It's possible to be entirely amoral, completely ethical, and still abide by a functioning social contract, assuming that you define "ethics" and "morality" functionally differently. The best part would be watching the religious folks' heads explode.
... core, unquestionable and clear doctrines of which there is no disagreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians.
aye, matey, list 'em, by Davy Jones!
I predict that Jason will not comment again on this thread, except to hurl baseless insults at his intellectual betters.
Ooo, oo, can I be Jason?
"You people just don't understand, and obviously don't want to, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you."
"You people just don't understand, and obviously don't want to, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you."
Oh, darn, now Jason's gonna have to reword his whole parting comment.
Ooh, now it's my turn:
"I hate you all, and yet somehow, I never leave."
A book written thousands of years ago is not and cannot be the last word on everything. (It is interesting in terms of being a mythos of an Iron Age people, however.) Those who think it should be such an authority are welcome to believe that, but I am sick and tired of having the Bible invoked when it comes to subjects like evolution. No matter how long or much creationists carry on about it!
Bronze Age I think wasn't it?
I thought all you people were educated. I thought you all knew everything there is to know about Christianity and that's why you reject it.
Well, whatever.
The seven core doctrines of the Christian faith are:
1. the existence of one God in three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. the deity of Jesus Christ
3. the authority of the Word of God (i.e. the Bible)
4. the sinfulness of mankind and our need for salvation
5. redemption only through the death and resurrection of Jesus
6. all believers making up the body of Christ (i.e. the church)
7. the return of Christ
These doctrines are clearly displayed in the Bible and are not debated among the vast majority of believers. They are all intertwined with each other and trying to dismiss even one undermines all the rest.
I would love to see you expand on this bit of nonsense. I really would. Dig yourself in deep.
Care to retract that, Dan? No? Didn't think so.
Oh, and Dan, I predict that you and most of everyone else here will actually be the ones hurling baseless insults.
(Well, okay. That's not much of a prediction, since it's what you already did in calling yourselves my "intellectual betters" based upon me being a Christian.)
If Jason doesn't interpret what he reads out of the dictionary, he's pretty slow.
So you think the dictionaries are open to interpretation? That the words don't actually mean what the books say they mean? That one can just read a word and make up their own definition?
Glad I don't live in that bizarre little world of yours.
If it is assumed that Jason is an "expert" on the core doctrines of the Christian faith, and what he states is fact and true, then, from core #3, one can derive:
- The Bible is the authoritative Word of God.
- Since the Bible has rules and regulations pertaining to the use, ownership, care, and sale of slaves, enslavement MUST be allowed and encouraged by God (as long as it is not "His own people" who are the slaves).
Well, I'm sorry Jason, but that just demonstrates that Christianity is NOT the most ethical set of beliefs out there. If there is a God, and His Word promotes slavery...then...
...God's an evil Mofo.
And if you support those ideals, which you have implied you do by default ("Oh, I fully admit that I may have some things wrong, but the things that I may have wrong are not core, unquestionable and clear doctrines of which there is no disagreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians."), then you are an evil mofo as well! Why? Because a moral person today would say that slavery is wrong!
Now, if you do not subscribe to slavery, then you willingly dismiss at least part of the authoritative Word of God, which means you are making moral judgements not in the absence of some omnipotent creator (like atheists do), but you are making moral judgements AGAINST the creator's code (since you believe in its existence).
Now, if you are not an evil mofo, and you agree slavery is wrong, and you just dismiss those parts in the Bible as ancient goat-herder foolery, then you are dismissing core doctrine #3. And if that is the case...well...
"They are all intertwined with each other and trying to dismiss even one undermines all the rest."
This makes me think that in today's world, Christianity is either immoral (if taken literally), or irrelevant (if people become more ethical than what the Bible promotes).
godntheeasterbunny, here's something from Wiki about the Iron age:
"The Iron Age in the Near East is believed to have begun with the discovery of iron smelting and smithing techniques in Anatolia or the Caucasus in the late 2nd millennium BC (circa 1300 BC). From here it spread rapidly throughout the Near East as iron weapons replaced bronze weapons by the early 1st millennium BC. ..."
The Bronze Age in the Near East pretty much ended by 1200BC. The Pentateuch was likely written over the period 1000-500BC. So the Bible is basically an Iron Age mythos.
List the top 5. Be specific. Then we can talk about whether they're wrong or not.
Otherwise, all this whining you're doing now is just another form of evasion, troll.
Interesting that none of those values explain how to agree on "masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia and the death penalty" as promised. Except if Jormungandr are correct and the Word is OT literally.
Oh, and if xians agree on 4 gods and yet says xianity is monotheistic, others don't think it is reasonable. ("the existence of one God in three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 2. the deity of Jesus Christ")
Jason, are you disavowing the noisy religious right? Because if they can't see themselves in the 23'd chapter of Matthew, they're blind.
Let's see, number of times Jesus mentioned abortion, plus the number of times he mentioned homosexuality, equals zero. But somehow those are the issues the Christian right is making the most noise about right now.
I don't interpret the Bible, tomtom, anymore than I would interpret the dictionary. I read it.
You read it? What, only the once?
You read it one time, and now assume you're the expert? How can you justify arguing on this topic when you admit you haven't even analysed the thing? I mean, I've read the good book a bunch of times, and every time I get something new out of it. It'sa a jolly little story - I especially like the bit where they have the 4 different perspectives on the same series of events. When did you read it? Did you read it on the bus? In a hotel? Did you read just "the Bible" on the cover, or did you actually open the thing?
None of the above?
Sorry, I must have read your sentence wrong.
Ain't no thing as a passive reader, yo.
Oh, and if xians agree on 4 gods and yet says xianity is monotheistic, others don't think it is reasonable. ("the existence of one God in three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 2. the deity of Jesus Christ")
I'm pretty sure Jesus is included in "the son" bit, making it 3 gods. Quite a bit of fuss about it in the Reformation, I believe. Interestingly enough, the idea of a part-deity, part-human being, come to save humanity goes back a very long way. Back to Gilgamesh and beyond, even. There was quite a market for those kind of stories back in the day.
Look, guys, let's be cordial. I know that a lot of us really enjoy bashing Christians, but let's talk in a civilized way and not be too derogatory towards each other. That's the best way to really mediate it out.
Jason, only one, as far as I could tell, of those core beliefs deal directly with the notion of interpreting morality from the bible (#3). As pointed out earlier in the original post and in subsequent posts, one can easily interpret any single passage or groups of passages as they'd like (Adam & Eve- why we can pillage this world without pause) or even in the original context (slavery) to be pretty inflammatory.
Knowing this, it returns to the original argument. On campus here at PSU we have a guy named the Willard Preacher who asks me how an atheist could have a higher moral authority. I tell him that it is based on what would help the society best to prosper, and of course he takes his argument down the selfish ad nauseum road.
I think that this post is imperative to point out how silly the argument of "If Atheists believe that whatever they want is right, then what if I believe killing is right?" is. Reading the bible for a higher moral authority is just as perspective-laden as any other approach.
First of all, all of the universally agreed on bits of Christianity are theological, not moral. They don't tell us jack crap about how to deal with masturbation, let alone any complicated issues.
Second, what the hell, I'll dig myself in deep:
Um, the plain meaning of these words is that the laws of the prophets are still the guiding prinnciples of Christianity, seeing as how the earth and sky are still here.
Right after this Jesus proceeds to explain which laws of the prophets we shouldn't follow anymore.
So... It's hard for me to understand how there doesn't have to be "interpretation". Even allowing for Paul... Paul is just some guy. If we're letting everybody who has a vision tell us how Christianity works, then we all have to become Mormons.
And besides that Paul endorses slavery.
I don't interpret the Bible, tomtom, anymore than I would interpret the dictionary. I read it.
Oh, really? You read the Bible? You speak Hebrew and Greek then? Oh, wait - is it Aramaic?
I mean, I guess we can't really be sure, since we don't have an original source for the text of the Bible. Just a long series of translations. But hey - everybody knows that translation is just a matter of reading a word here and then looking in a dictionary there, right? Everybody knows that there are never words, phrases, or concepts that are difficult if not impossible to accurately render in another language, right? Mu.
Jason, you never answered this:
Should we, as the Bible commands, kill the following people: disobedient sons (Deut. 21:18-21), blasphemers (Lev. 24:13-23), witches and wizards (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:27), gay men (Lev. 20:13), people who work on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), nonvirgin brides (Deut. 22:13-21), adulterers (Deut. 22:22), unfaithful fiancées (Deut. 22:23-24), non-Judeo-Christian evangelists (Deut. 13:1-10), and ex-Jews and ex-Christians who now worship other gods (Deut. 17:2-7)?
Do you not know the answer?
I theenk we can all agree that pipples should go back to worshipping cats, no?
so.
So you think the dictionaries are open to interpretation? That the words don't actually mean what the books say they mean? That one can just read a word and make up their own definition?
Actually, Jason, this is a pretty bad analogy. Dictionaries give words the meanings they do because the speakers of the language agree that that's what the word means.The word 'little' doesn't mean 'small' because the dictionary says so -- it's the other way around.
So by your analogy, the Bible just says what people agree Christianity is -- not the other way around. Not what you meant, I bet.
So your dictionary analogy doesn't excuse your absurd statement that you "read the bible, not interpret it".
And again, I've known many Christians -- far smarter ones than you, for sure -- who agree it's tricky to get at what the Bible means. THEY think it needs interpretation. Are they all wrong? Are they less intelligent than you?
(All quotes -Jason)
2. the deity of Jesus Christ3. the authority of the Word of God (i.e. the Bible)
Christians generally do not disagrew that the Word of God is in some sense authoritative, but vary widely in their interpretation of its meaning, extent of application, and applicability to modern-day problems--in other words, there is substantial disagreement about what said authority is saying, how authoritative it is, and what it is authoritative about.
No Christian denomination contends that people are perfect, and all, to my knowledge, believe that people sin and that people are in need of redemption of some sort. There is wide disagreement about what constitutes sin, where people's tendency to sin comes from, how extensive and severe our tendency to sin is, and what sort of redemption/salvation is necessary.
Yes, this one is undisputed, unless one counts the Catholic church, who maintains that salvation is through faith and works (the latter cannot reasonably be construed as being in any sense dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus), and some liberal denominations who maintain that works and character are the primary criterion for salvation. One also might consider Calvinist churches, who maintain that salvation is solely through God's selection.
Believers meaning what, exactly? Some denominations consider anyone who acknowledges the divinity of Jesus to be a "believer" and a brother/sister in faith, while others maintain that the only true Christians are those who follow their interpretation (sorry, "reading") of the Bible. Some maintain that only those who believe exactly as they do will be saved, some maintain that only a few people God chooses independent of their faith or conduct, some believet hat all who believe in Christ will be saved, some maintain that all decent people will be saved, and a few maintain that God will forgive everyone in the end.
This, again, is not debated as a basic concept, though ideas about what form that return will take, what will happen before and after it, and what it will mean for humankind differ markedly between denominations.
So basically your list of things that aren't contested only holds in the most general and inclusive terms, or with a very selective definition of what constitutes a "Christian." And I don't have time to acquire specific references for each of these, just as I don't have time to spoon-feed you in a more literal sense either, so don't bother claiming victory simply because I'm not doing your research for you.
Actually, I suspect he was calling you that based on you being an arrogant, obnoxious little prick who refuses to attack his opponents' strong points or attempt to answer their more difficult questions, considers a sneering, contemptuous dismissal an adequate rebuttal of any opposing argument, no matter how devastating. Or maybe that's just my interpretation.
Wait, no, I didn't interpret his comment, I read it. Scratch that.
Goddamn the formatting.
I wish they'd either fully implement HTML support or add an "edit comment" button.
Amazing,
"I'm pretty sure Jesus is included in "the son" bit, making it 3 gods."
Yes, where I come from (where the bible is interpreted as allegory and not Word), it is 3 (because allegory only goes so far). I was trying to pull Jason's teeth, of course. Plus I had never seen the jesus character being deified separately before.
"Interestingly enough, the idea of a part-deity, part-human being, come to save humanity goes back a very long way."
So hybrids are biblically correct, I take it. :-)
"Back to Gilgamesh and beyond, even. There was quite a market for those kind of stories back in the day."
I love the Gilgamesh immortality archetype. And markets. Why buy xianity when there are so much to try out first?
"pipples should go back to worshipping cats"
Whta do you mean with go back? Doesn't everybody worship them already?? How can you not???
I'd be careful about that; I bet you anything he bites. Maybe you want to start with his leg first. :) :)
Actually, I'm sorry to hear that it was just a joke--I was hoping that having all Swedes be born automatically into the Lutheran church had just caused that much indifference about religion that it wasn't soaked into the culture like it is here, and that as far as you knew it really could be 4 or whatever.
I guess that degree of indifference is still a ways off for both our cultures, eh?
Jason said: I thought all you people were educated. I thought you all knew everything there is to know about Christianity and that's why you reject it.
Oh great. More baseless insults. Gee thanks a lot.
You already agree that there are only a few (alleged) tenets that "most Christians" would not argue about. So I don't see how that would be incongruent with "The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it." "Just about anything" doesn't mean the same thing as "absolutely anything". I don't think "just about anything" is hyperbole either, by the way. If you can make the six day creation story into, oh, just about anything you want, then hey, just about anything goes.
"Maybe you want to start with his leg first. :) :)"
But that is so ordinary! Okay, I might have missed some nuances here. Sheesh, sometimes english is like pulling teeth!
"Actually, I'm sorry to hear that it was just a joke--I was hoping that having all Swedes be born automatically into the Lutheran church had just caused that much indifference about religion that it wasn't soaked into the culture like it is here, and that as far as you knew it really could be 4 or whatever."
Um, probably not typical swede here. Half the family is deeply religious, half deeply atheistic. I know details of 3 different christian denominations. I also have former buddist and anthroposophist family members around.
The situation today is that you aren't automatically born in - you must be actively baptised. The state church is no more, and some have left it. Mostly for tax reasons, so yes, that points to indifference. OTOH we have mandatory (I think) comparative religion, so it would be hard to miss the trinity.
"I guess that degree of indifference is still a ways off for both our cultures, eh?"
Indeed. And as long as there are comparative religion classes I think the concept of trinity will be remembered by most.
I stand corrected--thanks! My experience from the early 80s is clearly obsolete.
When I was there, though, my teacher pointed out the paradox between the almost 100% membership, and the low rate of actual church attendance. So now I am curious if attendance is up since automatic enrollment ended, or if it stayed pretty flat?
"I stand corrected--thanks! My experience from the early 80s is clearly obsolete."
Well, it was recently. Baptism as requirement (or as I see now in the swedish wikipedia, voluntarily waiting to be baptised) was introduced 1996. The separation was 2000. It isn't complete, unfortunately for both parties - there are laws regulating it, and instead it can keep it's name as The Swedish Church. Halfbaked, really.
"When I was there, though, my teacher"
Oh? At a university? How many snaps songs did you learn?
"pointed out the paradox between the almost 100% membership, and the low rate of actual church attendance. So now I am curious if attendance is up since automatic enrollment ended, or if it stayed pretty flat?"
I think attendance has gone down further, and that it is a problem for the church. Remember, Sweden started out as feudal, later abruptly transformed to a centralised strong kingdom which made it uniform agrarian and protestantic. (I think; history is not my forte.) Later the social democratic party with the unions were continuing that conformity. Thus the high church membership and low real interest.
The newer generation are better behaved, we have more immigrants and the society is starting to look more normal individualistic and unruly. Unfortunately muslims have problems getting their churches up I think, so I guess the society isn't as nice as one could hope.
Jason posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The seven core doctrines of the Christian faith are:
1. the existence of one God in three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. the deity of Jesus Christ
3. the authority of the Word of God (i.e. the Bible)
4. the sinfulness of mankind and our need for salvation
5. redemption only through the death and resurrection of Jesus
6. all believers making up the body of Christ (i.e. the church)
7. the return of Christ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. - What about arianism, or Unitarianism.
That this "trinity" bit is nonsense.
A lot of christians (including Isaac Newton) believed this.
And a lot of others were killed for it.
This is why the catholics are so exited about the Da Vinci Code crap.
2. Yes, but as a single person, or one-third of one?
ANd as a real human body, or something else/as well?
3. Which version/translation/selection?
there are lots of version, you know.
Ever read the Apocrypha?
Or the Gnostic Gospels?
And remeber, this information is at least 1800 years old - you might think we have learn SOMETHING fresh in the meantime ... ??
4. The contrariness and stupidity of Humans, yes.
Sinfulness rests on a lot of assumptions, including making all women guilty.
5. What is this "redemption", other than submission to the will of the priests?
6. All believers, including Jerry Adams and Ian Paisley and the Metropolitan of Constantinople, and the Lords Resistance Army, and Saints ..... Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard of Ciarvasux, and Ignatius Loyola, and Dominic, and --- add assorted list of murderers who were also saints here ....
7. Grow up.
-Torbjörn Larsson
Perhaps, but I'm sure the intersection of skintight leather outfits and male adolescence will do more to perpetuate Trinity's memory than comparative religion... ^.^
"uniform agrarian"
I just rembered another strong socialisation force here (excluding the sometimes harsh climate) - the "shift" farming, where each generation divided the lots further. It ended up with pieces that were some meters across, and a whole village had to be cooperating to be able to farm efficiently. It took some later land reforms to get away from that mess.
Oh, Trinity, yes. It was a religious experience.
Currently Bro. Justin, who came to the monastery after many years in the art world, is translating the Bible into the visual bible for those who do not think logically, but visually. I have seen a few chapters, and I must admit, he is working with blots of ink, and much trial and error, but the results so far are most amazing, I believe the most telling experiment so far has been when a random group of drifters and ramblers (we are located in the great Mojave, so these are but the only types that occasion our way) viewed the pages of a standard King James and then the pages of the new Justin Visual, they were more likely to keep their eyes glued to the visuals, and most walked away with a smile on their face.
Been done, Bro. Bartleby, been done. Why do you think churches have been stuffed with illustrative works of art since at least the time of Constantine?
It's been done with legos, too.
Hmmm...I wonder why TypeKey keeps claiming that it will keep me logged in for two weeks, but doesn't.
Jason, if you "read" a text but do not "interpret" it, then you have imparted no idea of what that text means into your head. You cannot understand a text without interpretation. That's what the word "interpret" means.
I can, for example, read a text in Spanish or Japanese without interpreting it. That's because I wouldn't understand anything that was written.
It sounds like you're one of those people who has blinded himself to the fact that he is himself "interpreting" everything that he reads. You may feel that this kind of constant rigidity to your thinking process somehow provides you with security. But it really doesn't.
Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I will take the opportunity to plug Paul Farrell's book, Illustrates Stories from the Bible, (illustrations by Kathy Demchuck) by American Atheist press.
Wow, I'm impressed. It's got the massacres, Jephthah's daughter, blood, foreskins, etc. I might spend a couple days going through that site.
Logos with Legos.
Not to be picky but it's not an unfaithful fiance' in this passage. Bethrothal in that day and age was marriage. People confuse this as the cultural terminology has changed in the past 1900 years but our wedding ceremony IS the bethrothal ceremony. There was another term used for what we call 'engagement' which is simply agreement to marry.
It's no biggie but for some reason I hate seeing people get the uses and periods confused.
Chance,
Are you discussion the usage of the English word "betrothed" during the time the King James version was written. What does the original Hebrew say?
Oops are you "discussing"
Torbjörn on the Swedish church: Thus the high church membership and low real interest.
I liked the news story when the pastor at Ãre (or Sälen? or some other ski town) decided to hit the slopes on Easter and close the church, since no one goes to church on Easter :)
I am now imagining a Christianity-promoting roadshow involving three healthy young men dressed in skintight leather demonstrating on stage the theological principles of 'the three who are one' ...
AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!
*Opens braincase and scrubs the contents for a week.*
I know he's already run away with his tail between his legs, as usual, but one of his stupid utterances deserves a response anyway. Jason:
Uh, no. I called us your intellectual betters because you're clearly an ignorant little monkey, completely independent of your religious convictions. You'd be just as ignorant were you an atheist, a Hindu, or a Zoroastrian. Christianity doesn't make you smart. It doesn't even make you literate. You don't get a free pass on the stupid shit you say just because you mindlessly fetishize a dead Jew.
And if you knew fuck-all about history or about the religion you claim to follow, you'd understand that every single one of your allegedly unarguable tenets of Christian faith has been hotly debated since before Christ was crucified.
Objective reality is our only god. Anything else is either fantasy or insanity.
Trinity's memory ....
Erm - isn't that the initial test at Alamagordo in July (?) 1945 ?
I can see why remembering that might be a good idea!
Religious morality isn't about living a good life. It's about telling other people how to live their lives.
Example: 'Tommie of the Year' lectures his fellow graduates about use of birth control
Jason's 7 Core doctrines are interesting, since I seriously doubt that there was universal agreement among Christians about these until around the year 500 (not to mention, as pointed out above, the lack of agreement on these "core doctrines" by believers today). Especially #3, considering that there was no "Bible" as we know it until ~370 or so.
G. Tingey: I think they're referring to the character of that name from the movie _The Matrix_, played by Carrie-Anne Moss.
Ms. Moss's characteristics, Trinity (the character)'s use of skintight leather outfits, and the mindset of the viewer combine to create the "religious experience" referred to.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/
To market in terms of high-performance rather than cost, and in order to specialise consequently, you require to watch the official format of the 4 Ps marketing plan. That is, Price, Product, Place and Promotion obviously you recognize the heavy properties of the merchandise, and the cost, but for place you should consider approximately the type of individuals who are willing to pay over 4x price of competing merchandise whereas the low-priced option may be sold where accent is on cost, your product will be suited to places/distributors where the customers will be willing to pay for high-performance. Thank you for this article! I've just recovered a really good amazing source about advertising Test it!