Jeemsie1989 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 For a critique of christianity, I would recommend the Bible. See how many inconsistencies you can spot and how many also with what Christians say today. I used to consider myself a Christian. Then I read the book properly and looked at the faith/ religion as a whole. I certainly ain't in the Jesus fanclub anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 ... the Bible. See how many inconsistencies you can spotToo easy, it is much more of a challenge to try and spot where it is occasionally consistent. Then I read the book properly...I've never read it cover to cover but have dipped in from time to time, usually looking for entertainment. Mostly this has been with some hotel room Gideon's bible. One thing I note is that these are usually (always?) just the new testament. From an entertainment point of view the old testament is much more of a chuckle with Leviticus' instructions on dealing with mildew in the desert etc. It seems to me that Christians prefer the Jesus oriented NT and tend to be less comfortable with all the Yahweh OT smiting and genocide. As for Dawkins, I saw him lecture back in the 80's and it was easily one of the highlights of my time in Edinburgh. He was a bit less pushy then, but just as convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 The only way to get any illumination out of a Bible is to set fire to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 lol, if u want to be bible free, let me as I say as its impossable to learn unless we tr, hate, pain, selfishnis, torture, all things i enjoy, even so more now i can enjoy it means nothing, lol, how pathetic, lol, bring it on. Let me show them their ways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 ^Nope, not a scoobies. Babelfish couldn't work it out either. In fact, it could even be a Babelfish translation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 lol, if u want to be bible free, let me as I say as its impossable to learn unless we tr, hate, pain, selfishnis, torture, all things i enjoy, even so more now i can enjoy it means nothing, lol, how pathetic, lol, bring it on. Let me show them their waysIt would seem to suggest that a drunken Styles, known previously on occasion to spout forth some pretty repulsive statements, has perhaps sunk even lower in professing to enjoy hate, pain, selfishness and torture (in a Crowley-esque statement). One to watch perhaps. Or perhaps he'll explain himself when sober, then again, perhaps we wouldn't want to hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justlookin Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 Yet another reason Religions should be given the same respect as fecal matter on the sole of your shoe. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6436872 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 At least their religion will be soon cut down in number if they just let their offspring die, leaving more room for others who can give their kids a half sane upbringing at least. Their kid gets its wings for christmas, mine get an x-box 360. Sure the wings come cheap for them but I like to see mine smile, not gaping dead eyes. (Suffer little children to come unto me) = moronic, unfit, killer parents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Is it the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses who would rather let their children die than give them a blood transfusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeemsie1989 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Mormons isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Nope, Jehovah's witnesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 It an interesting point that those who deny medical intervention to save their loved ones are actually devout 'evolutionists' in potential outcome. Both a finger in the eye to scientific athiests who decry them, and to themselves that defer to "God's will", in one swift maneuver. Nowt queerer than folk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted December 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 ^ Well actually, that's the strict natural selection theory/survival of the fittest which was first written in the 19th century, but not only has Darwinism changed from then, so has the state of affairs. Would it not be survival of the fittest to take the medical treatment? If you're smart enough to help yourself to whatever treatment that your group has evolved and developed then you are truly smarter and will survive, thus survival of the fittest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 It an interesting point that those who deny medical intervention to save their loved ones are actually devout 'evolutionists' in potential outcome.Hardly: denying your children medical care isn't a terribly good strategy for ensuring your genes get passed onto future generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeemsie1989 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 ^ Well actually, that's the strict natural selection theory/survival of the fittest which was first written in the 19th century, but not only has Darwinism changed from then, so has the state of affairs. Would it not be survival of the fittest to take the medical treatment? If you're smart enough to help yourself to whatever treatment that your group has evolved and developed then you are truly smarter and will survive, thus survival of the fittest. I would agree totally JAS. Survival of the fittest must include using your brain power that you have evolved with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.