The Bible Is Horseshit - Change My Mind

[Shen Li]

The contradictions begin in Genesis and continue through when Jesus was born, and what happened after he died.

Several letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are pure forgeries. Paul did not write them.

Jesus of Nazareth may have lived. But, the virgin birth and him remaining single and childless are fake as fuck.

The bible at best is allegorical. It contains a lot of myth and a sprinkling of historical fact. It was curated by the Roman Empire in the fourth century to consolidate their power.

The idea of the Bible being inerrant and infallible is less than 200 years old and of course American. 

[Herman]

The contradictions begin in Genesis and continue through when Jesus was born, and what happened after he died.

Several letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are pure forgeries. Paul did not write them.

Jesus of Nazareth may have lived. But, the virgin birth and him remaining single and childless are fake as fuck.

The bible at best is allegorical. It contains a lot of myth and a sprinkling of historical fact. It was curated by the Roman Empire in the fourth century to consolidate their power.

The idea of the Bible being inerrant and infallible is less than 200 years old and of course American.

It aint something old Herman gives a lot of thought. If the Bible is bullshit, so what. Islamic texts are guides to genocide.

[JOE]

The contradictions begin in Genesis and continue through when Jesus was born, and what happened after he died.

Several letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are pure forgeries. Paul did not write them.

Jesus of Nazareth may have lived. But, the virgin birth and him remaining single and childless are fake as fuck.

The bible at best is allegorical. It contains a lot of myth and a sprinkling of historical fact. It was curated by the Roman Empire in the fourth century to consolidate their power.

The idea of the Bible being inerrant and infallible is less than 200 years old and of course American.

Actually I think there are different versions of the Bible depending on what year and languages they were written in Shen Li Shen. Latin Greek Hebrew. And the contents in each aren't always the same. The Bible we read today probably isn't the same as the one(s) from 100 AD.

I think caskur caskur or Dove Dove know & can explain it to us.

[knows things]

Jesus likes to spend a lot of time with his bro's, even going as far as to assure them he would make his consort and whore Mary Magdalene into a ladyboy so she could get into hebbin (Thomas 114), had a foot fetish for his bro's (John 13) and (if you believe the Ehternopian bibble) even buggered an impressionable young lad at one point (Mark 14).

Not that there's anything wrong with that, just ask JoHoMo.

[DKG]

The contradictions begin in Genesis and continue through when Jesus was born, and what happened after he died.

Several letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are pure forgeries. Paul did not write them.

Jesus of Nazareth may have lived. But, the virgin birth and him remaining single and childless are fake as fuck.

The bible at best is allegorical. It contains a lot of myth and a sprinkling of historical fact. It was curated by the Roman Empire in the fourth century to consolidate their power.

The idea of the Bible being inerrant and infallible is less than 200 years old and of course American.

We used to have a lot of these discussions at one time. I don't care about anyone's religion. As long as they do not try to force it on secular society.

[formosan]

Romans 16:17-18
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting

[Brent]

The contradictions begin in Genesis and continue through when Jesus was born, and what happened after he died.

Several letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are pure forgeries. Paul did not write them.

Jesus of Nazareth may have lived. But, the virgin birth and him remaining single and childless are fake as fuck.

The bible at best is allegorical. It contains a lot of myth and a sprinkling of historical fact. It was curated by the Roman Empire in the fourth century to consolidate their power.

The idea of the Bible being inerrant and infallible is less than 200 years old and of course American.

Don't read it and your problem is solved.

[Thiel]

Jo Jo and I object to the Apostle Paul's homophobia.

[Shen Li]

Actually I think there are different versions of the Bible depending on what year and languages they were written in

I said the current bible was curated by the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

[Herman]

I said the current bible was curated by the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

You see why folks have the old wanker on ignore.

[.]

I said the current bible was curated by the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

In some religions it is still being manipulated. Jehovah Witnesses are a good example of this, their changes to the bible's texts in the form of the New World Translation bible are often subtle but in many cases they screw with the context entirely. And if you should disagree with the elders take on it, you are declared an apostate and your excommunication is all but assured. And not just from the church mind you, family members are encouraged to turn their backs on you too lest they too be excommunicated. You're not even afforded the luxury of examining other religious groups doctrines; as a JayDub you can leave all the books and pamphlettes you like at the places you visit, but you are expected to refuse any and all attempts of others to hand you theirs.

It's been said that if your faith is solid and incontrovertible then it ought to stand up to any and all challenges. One might reasonably assume this would include the writings of alternate religions, so it would be safe to conclude that the forbidding of certain texts to the congregation points to a serious doubt in somebody's mind that their teachings are beyond reproach.

This is part and parcel of why I consider myself agnostic. Every religion will assure you that they have the skinny on the nature and form of the deity(s), something even the atheists are guilty of in claiming the total absence of same. So many competing stories, all of which require you to take them on faith. Someone has to be wrong here.

Having said this however, I put it to you that dismissing any religious text as "horseshit" is a mistake. Leaving aside any declaration on the nature of some groovy sky fairy, these books have been used to formulate the society you operate within, the rules and expectations on acceptable behaviour all flow from it. This has tangible and appreciable value in provisioning of an agreed social contract for a group of people to operate under.

You are free to disagree of course. I would note however that if the bible (any of them) were truly horseshit as you say and furthermore dismissed as such, then things like "thou shalt not steal" would be included in the "horsehit" pile and any and all complaint you might levy against Ottawa's penchant for stealing the fruits of your labour be null and void.

And you're not about to do that. 

[Shen Li]

Never mind the modern translations of the bible as you mentioned about the NW version. I am talking about the translation from the original Greek manuscripts to other languages. I am talking about letters attributed to Paul in the new testament that were forgeries. I am talking about the Romans deliberately omitting some non-canonical books from the final Bible because it didn't serve the empire's grip on power.

All of that is on top of the contradictions within the Roman Bible that they themselves curated in the 4th century.

Inerrant and infallible my yellow ass. That is a modern North American understanding of Xtianity that was a backlash against what was happening in Europe at the time. In particular, Germany.

[.]

Never mind the modern translations of the bible as you mentioned about the NW version. I am talking about the translation from the original Greek manuscripts to other languages.

And I'm telling you there is more than one "current version". I'll even go you one better, the original texts were in a hodgepodge of languages, Greek being only one of many. It isn't as though we can point to any one parent translation of works and claim them to be singularly representative of "the bible" in its entirety with all others being complete bunkum, not when there are so many divergent and actively competing editions of it. Not unless you plan on practicing the kinds of slavering elitism you and I give the average liberal for indulging in, though I would hasten to remind you that it isn't as if Liberals enjoy a monopoly on such behaviour.

The Romans of the fourth century (which your timely clarification of your original intent appears necessary, given that your intent wasn't immediately obvious to me) certainly practiced such elitism, but no matter; in my previous reply I indicated to you that a faithfulness and historically accuracy aside, the bible's worth can be judged in the success of the societies that arose from its teachings. We can both agree that the "Damasine List" of authoritative teachings does indeed form to which you refer and repudiate a relatively small part of the whole and was selected by the Council of Rome to apply to "The Christian Church" of the day with the intent on governing a sizeable what of the population at the time. It did enjoy some limited success in guiding its adherents on societally acceptable expressions and interactions, its contents, along with the societies it was initially designed to rule over, have long since flourished and perished through its many subsequent rewrites and "remasterings". Ancient Rome no longer exists, its people no longer exist, but for the time they did, they made a fist of it under the rubric of what you call "horseshit" today. They weren't the only ones mind you, nor were they the first to turn these tales into a working civilization.

There is the "worth" and in my mind there isn't a single person here that can disprove it, myself included.

I deliberately cast my net wide when it comes to biblical teachings because I seek to eschew such elitism and there are few of any flavour of the cloth that it doesn't invite claims of heresy and apostacy from. Being an avowed agnostic I am free to challenge their beliefs and enrich my own understanding of it all and make it work a little better for me. Simply pointing at it and calling it a pile of meadow muffins doesn't really advance the action any in my estimation, not when it was already long cold when it was sifted for corn and served up by Mario and Luigi a millennia and a half ago. Big fucken whoopie that it's a Readers Digest version of the original, it was proven to work and wasn't being shoveled by a bunch of gender dysphoric pooftersexuals that were openly advocating for the statutory rape of minors... or worse.

I can suspend any disbelief accuracy or lack thereof for as long as it inspires peoples better nature. And I commend similar from you, irrespective of where Ultimate Truth resides. 

[Thiel]

Certainly some interesting takes on the origins of Christian religion. But, Jo Jo and I are uncomfortable with the Apostle Paul's blatant homophobia.

[Renegade Quark]

Are you an atheist, Shen Lee?