2008-07-11 - Rider Down, NW11

(edited to remove the usual ad hominem). . . . I know the new testament fairly well as I was beaten with it regularly as a child (not really) and I reject a lot of what you say here - they are massively edited and don't consitute intelligent interpretation, just a fitting of words to a standpoint. It is how it is; I assure you these are reappropriated and not fully quoted.

They make the point and what is said is unambiguous, if you wish to expand the quotes and show me that the context negates what I have said, then fair enough, do so. I think you will find although detail is added the fact remains that 'the law' is to be upheld regarless of the apologetics desire to shove it and it's inhumanity under the theological carpet (I wonder if I am the first to ever use the term theological carpet ? . . . . Google . . . Bollocks :(

The claim that we should ignore the Old Testement is bogus, it is such a horrendous and malevolent document that I would be surprised if an organization didn't try and distance themselves from it, Christianity's problem is that the Judeo Christian god is set up and sold as an omnimax (and most relevantly here as omnibenevolent) so we see the usual logical contortions and recourse to semantic nonesene and equivocation to wriggle out of the their omnimalevolent inheritance.

One point I have tried to make is that a proposition is put forward: "The teaching's of Jesus are a good guide (to paraphrase)"

I then ask what these teachings are, try to find out where you get these teachings from to use a guide to (for what of a better term) good conduct.

Questions like this tend not to get clear answers - but I can only presume from the above that these guides, lessons or whatever come from scripture, 'it is from the bible that we get our morality' you will hear from you local Christian, we get our guide to life from Mr Jesus'.

But the bible is littered with some of the most horrendous violations on humanity imaginable, without listing it all again it's enough to say the pages of the bible are running with the blood of men, women, children, homosexuals, goats, heathens, the wrong tribe, the right tribe at the wrong time, the right tribe at the right time, fuck it why bother pick through the carnage - god didn't, he just though to himself one day 'fuck it let's drown the lot of the fuckers and do the animals while I am at it, they have been fucking around too' (obviously Noah and the farm got through this one) and committed specicide.

So the teachings here are a good guide, but we take the good stuff, (the golden rule, you shall not murder and so on) and ignore the stuff that turns our stomachs (the moderates rejection of a literal hell, the sanctioning of slavery) and so on.

So where does this come from, where does this exobiblical guide come from, the guide that guides us through the nonsense and horror in scripture, what do we use to pick out the love thy neighbors from the kill thy neighbors, the stone the adulterer from the forgive all, the kill the homosexuals to the golden rule, the good from the bad. (It is usually at this stage that anyone who has some any time debating these things with theists would be keeping an eye out for that old favourite, circular reasoning.) But what should be obvious to anyone is that we use our innate sense of morality, out innate empathy and reason to navigate through the good and the barbaric in the Bible.

We do not use the teachings of Jesus as a guide, we use our own innate values to sift though and (to steel from Bhudda) cherry pick what is right and what it wrong, the good stuff ? Of course that is the real stuff that Jesus wanted me to take on board, the foul inhumane brutality, naked racism and misogyny ? Well that is misinterpretation, later additions, parable, metaphor and the work of later corrupt men. This is how it goes.

er.. I can only say +1 here Tynan, maybe not with the fallacious bit, I've never been into blowjobs.

I think you attributed Bhudda's quote to me.

lfgss - london's for god's sake seminar...or something

:D

it amazes me how evangelical agnostics can get on your ass...

It's coming, I can feel it coming, the atheism is a religion too bit, looking forward to that. ;P

Agnostics, bunch of fucking idiots too.

:)

this is superbly bewildering though, whether you're into the whole religion thing or not.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

Christ on a bike!!!

It's great, seen that before, I like how they have not served up the Victorian/20C recipe (meek and mild Hippy Jesus, all loving god), but kept all the fire, brimstone and slaughter that the book actually is built on.

Right there, at the end, 'built on' - it's a lego reference, Jesus fucking Christ that's good.

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

Isn't that all sexual acts? I fucking hope so. Part of why sex is so much fun is because you get weird out-of-body-whilst-connected-to-someone-else's-body moments where you realize just how fucking animalistic and thoroughly gross and indecent and outrageously abominable to deities the whole shebang is. I often consider how God supposedly created mankind and all the animals and yet I'm being so disgustingly animalistic 'he' would deny responsibility for creating me whilst I'm doing some major veiny bangstick manoeuvre or performing the entire International Phonetic Alphabet on veggie-friendly beef curtains.

If God ended up so upset that he sought to unleash his just punishment upon me whilst I was at it, that would simply heighten the pleasure no end. I am British after all.

I can't be arsed to read all this - can someone tell me who won?

Sanchez

Aha - and presumably Beltran lost?

Fuck all this let's just have a punch up ! :)

I can't be arsed to read all this - can someone tell me who won?

Me, I won, god emailed me to say sorry about all the trouble, which I thought was nice, but you'd think he's have his own domain and not be signed up to hotmail ?

God changed his name to Google by deed poll.

Isn't that all sexual acts? I fucking hope so. Part of why sex is so much fun is because you get weird out-of-body-whilst-connected-to-someone-else's-body moments where you realize just how fucking animalistic and thoroughly gross and indecent and outrageously abominable to deities the whole shebang is. I often consider how God supposedly created mankind and all the animals and yet I'm being so disgustingly animalistic 'he' would deny responsibility for creating me whilst I'm doing some major veiny bangstick manoeuvre or performing the entire International Phonetic Alphabet on veggie-friendly beef curtains.

Free willy.

It may, on the surface not appear so, but that there is a clever conflation/pun on 'free will' - 'sex' - the word 'willy' and a film about a whale.

God changed his name to Google by deed poll.

Bible = Junk Mail.

can we please keep religious views to church on a sunday
thankyou.

I learnt so many new words today it was brilliant thanks

I learnt so many new words today it was brilliant thanks

Me too, it's been interesting ! :)

for some.

"is this some kind tautologist victory through semantics"

I had to go and look this one up in the dictionary before I figured out he was insulting me ...:)

It's been quite erotic for others.

They make the point and what is said is unambiguous, if you wish to expand the quotes and show me that the context negates what I have said, then fair enough, do so.

I thought smiling buddha gave quite a good example of the top of his head, sorry man. You can say Jesus said "I am a fuckwit" but if the context is 'Jesus said, "What do you think I am - a fuckwit?" then it falls on its arse.

As I said before - engaging in it is a labourious process that would require hours. Which I haven't got on this. I spent fourteen or so years with it and I got tired of it.

The claim that we should ignore the Old Testement is bogus..

I don't get this one - my whole shit was about Jesus's teachings. Half the reason he was executed was because he was preaching shit that contravened the Old Testament (which obviously wasn't the old Testament at the time).

One point I have tried to make is that a proposition is put forward: "The teaching's of Jesus are a good guide (to paraphrase)"

I then ask what these teachings are, try to find out where you get these teachings from to use a guide to (for what of a better term) good conduct.

I already answered this ages ago - very directly too. The Beatitudes, The Parables and the collected incidents that confounded those around him

But the bible is littered with some of the most horrendous violations on humanity imaginable, without listing it all again it's enough to say the pages of the bible are running with the blood of men, women, children, homosexuals, goats, heathens, the wrong tribe, the right tribe at the wrong time, the right tribe at the right time, fuck it why bother pick through the carnage - god didn't, he just though to himself one day 'fuck it let's drown the lot of the fuckers and do the animals while I am at it, they have been fucking around too' (obviously Noah and the farm got through this one) and committed specicide.

It is. That's because a lot of it's narrative, even exciting in places, that tries to expose humanity for all it is and has ever been. It also describes God's relationship with humanity. It doesn't shy away from describing God as vengeful, petty, vindictive, pisstaking, furious, testing, sulky, bewildering, betraying....For a believer the book of Job is one of the most depressing texts of all time as it takes a good man who is spiritual and dedicated and turns his whole existence to shit. No explanation. God doesn't give a shit? Maybe that's the point. Better a God who doesn't give a shit than no God at all? Maybe the underlying point, I don't know. It's a great text to read and not empathise with until something happens in your life or someone else's that makes you believe in no God or that God is shit. But we're adults here - the idea of God as loving and lovely is for little kids to go to sleep nice at night.

In the context of Christianity however, all this comes before Jesus.

And I was disagreeing with your initial line, "Jesus is a cock."

**what do we use to pick out the love thy neighbors from the kill thy neighbors, the stone the adulterer from the forgive all, the kill the homosexuals to the golden rule, the good from the bad. **

Jesus: "love one another." "you have been taught "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - but I say (basically "turn the other cheek")..."

Jesus (talking to men who were about to stone to death an adulterous woman): "let he who be without sin cast the first stone."

Jesus (on homosexuality): "............." (ie bupkiss - far as i know)

**We do not use the teachings of Jesus as a guide, we use our own innate values to sift though and (to steel from Bhudda) cherry pick what is right and what it wrong, the good stuff ? Of course that is the real stuff that Jesus wanted me to take on board, the foul inhumane brutality, naked racism and misogyny ? Well that is misinterpretation, later additions, parable, metaphor and the work of later corrupt men. This is how it goes.[/quote] **

Again, I've no disagreement with you on the existence of these in the bible as a whole. Again, really - foul inhumane brutality - not taught or embodied by Jesus; naked racism - not taught by Jesus; naked misogyny - doubtful, seeing as one of his closest friends was a hooker.

You asked me to respond to my original comment that Jesus's teachings were how not to be a cock in life and you're refuting my responses with stuff outside of Jesus's teachings. Jesus said, "I am the new way" "I give you a new commandment" - it was absolutley about leaving all the old shit behind and looking forward. The contextualisation of his teachings - both from a historical and theological perspective - necessitates the inclusion of the Old Testament to show just how new this was.

"is this some kind tautologist victory through semantics"

I had to go and look this one up in the dictionary before I figured out he was insulting me ...:)

Not really an insult (honestly) just (perhaps badly phrased) exasperation at an argument being taken nowhere (the tautology), a little tongue in cheek perhaps.

why can't you guys just p.m. each other as opposed to arguing and airing each of your views?

It's been quite erotic for others.

I posted everything in a gimp suit, I would have hoped that came over (help yourselves) in my posts.