a question of values ....

[Alastar]

You're assuming a lot of things, most of them false.

I merely pointed out: this is what we percieve from you, this is the image you give out.  It may not be accurate, it may not be what you intend, but this is how you come across.

you don't have to convince me or anything, and you can't argue this.  It. Just. Is.

Do with it whatever you will.

[dman11235]

So, why aren't you guys calling-out dman for the same thing?

Why?  That would be because I honestly have no source, and readily accepted that that meant what I said had no substance.  And then I got some support from someone else who DID have the links.

[CountArioch]

My point was that I don't have the time or patience to sit here and compile all my research,

You don't have the time or patience to copy and paste one link?  But you have time to construct walls of crazy?  If you spent less time ranting you'd have all the time in the world to back up what you said.

That would imply that my research was internet-based.    (hint: there is life outside the internet)

Then name a title of something I can read.  Geez louise, what is so hard about not spouting gibberish that you aren't willing to back up?

Did you even attempt to read the rest of the post? 

That would imply that you have something relevant to tell me.  When I want to know about corn whiskey or how to nail my hot cousin, I'll be sure to ask you immediately.

[veekie]

...how to nail my hot cousin...

Didn't think you'd need advice for that.

[Alastar]

Lolz

[bhu]

(to bhu's credit, he, at least, has apparently moved-on -- thank you, bhu)

I havent quite moved on.  You stopped replying to me, and I'm on steroids and muscle relaxers cause I threw out my back last night so I'm a little short on coherency at the moment.

[wotmaniac]

Irrelevant wall o' text:

So, why aren't you guys calling-out dman for the same thing?

Why?  That would be because I honestly have no source, and readily accepted that that meant what I said had no substance.  And then I got some support from someone else who DID have the links.

sorry -- I wasn't trying to single you out; and had really hoped that it wouldn't come across as such.
I was simply trying to point out inconsistency in the methodology of those who would traduce me.

You're assuming a lot of things, most of them false.

I merely pointed out: this is what we percieve from you, this is the image you give out.  It may not be accurate, it may not be what you intend, but this is how you come across.

you don't have to convince me or anything, and you can't argue this.  It. Just. Is.

Do with it whatever you will.

What assumptions have I made that are apparently false?  If it is about what I have inferred from your statement -- what am I supposed to think, with words like "constantly" and "continuous"?  If it is in reference to my assessment of others -- it is based purely on the established pattern of behavior that they have demonstrated.

Who is this "we" and "everybody"?  Do you presume to speak for the entire forum?  Let them come forward on their own -- as you are the first to point this out to me.
Also, could you possibly quantify things for me a little?  Otherwise, how can I possibly have any reference point from which to improve my interaction with this forum?  Seriously.  Additionally, how the hell can I be held responsible for some else holding false assumptions about me, especially despite the fact that the record states the contrary to those assumptions, or the fact that I have actively gone out of my way to attempt to disabuse those assumptions (and explicitly so)?    That doesn't even make any sense.  So please, try to quantify this for me.
The point I was trying to get across was a) I didn't have the info immediately on hand, and b) I didn't care enough about continuing such a line of debate to actually go find it.  What is wrong with that?  Also, the feeling that I got (based on previous interactions), was that the situation was analogous to: "Water is wet" "oh yeah, prove it".  Well, you know what? -- of course I'm gonna be a little contentious when responding to something like that.  
Never mind that I actually DID tell him where I first started my research -- any religious history professor or seminary graduate would suffice -- I thought that there might actually be some value to be had in embarking on such an endeavor (well beyond simply answering a simple question).  I felt that something like "the actual existence of Jesus" was something that would require a very lengthy and detailed discussion on the veracity of various historical documents -- a discussion that would be outside the scope and intent of this thread (yeah, I know that I originally posted that I wanted this to be "free-flow", but that only meant that I didn't necessarily want to relegate this thread to a single specific topic -- but if you're gonna opine on a topic, at least keep it relevant and aboveboard).  
But because I did not provide a specific website link, or because I reacted unfavorably to perceived attacks on my integrity -- I'm a big ol' piece of shit?  

My point was that I don't have the time or patience to sit here and compile all my research,

You don't have the time or patience to copy and paste one link?  But you have time to construct walls of crazy?  If you spent less time ranting you'd have all the time in the world to back up what you said.

That would imply that my research was internet-based.    (hint: there is life outside the internet)

Then name a title of something I can read.  Geez louise, what is so hard about not spouting gibberish that you aren't willing to back up?

Did you even attempt to read the rest of the post?

That would imply that you have something relevant to tell me.  When I want to know about corn whiskey or how to nail my hot cousin, I'll be sure to ask you immediately.

alright guy, I'm done with you.  I thought that you went and started your own thread for the expressed purpose of alleviating your compulsion to take a shit on other people's threads?  How's that working out for you?
Okay, sure, you might be trying to be light-hearted about that -- but I've got way too much disdain for you at the moment to put up with it.  
Now stop you trolling or GTFO.

Okay, I'm officially done with that unfortunate piece of business.

 

[wotmaniac]

(to bhu's credit, he, at least, has apparently moved-on -- thank you, bhu)

I havent quite moved on.  You stopped replying to me, (...).

I kept getting derailed, and don't even remember the relevant bits I wanted to discuss -- I'll get up to date later tonight.

[bhu]

(to bhu's credit, he, at least, has apparently moved-on -- thank you, bhu)

I havent quite moved on.  You stopped replying to me, (...).

I kept getting derailed, and don't even remember the relevant bits I wanted to discuss -- I'll get up to date later tonight.

No hurries. The room is still spinning 4 hours after ive taken my meds.  I prolly wont be any good till tomorrow or the day after.  I didnt realize steroids took this much out of you.  Or maybe its mixing them and the muscle relaxers. 

[Alastar]

Perceptions are, by their definition, qualitative biases.  Asking me to quantify them is like asking someone to provide a weblink to explain jesus.

[wotmaniac]

Perceptions are, by their definition, qualitative biases.  Asking me to quantify them is like asking someone to provide a weblink to explain jesus.

I guess I'm looking for a possible basis on which those perceptions are predicated -- even if it is a matter of trying to explain perceived nuance.  It's not as if you are simply making an off-hand comment in passing -- you're calling me out on my (misattributed) behavior, indicating that I (unnecessarily) need to change that behavior, and making implications about my person -- but cannot articulate what I've done wrong, and can offer nothing constructive.  Hmm, yeah -- right.   
Unless you're admitting that those perceptions are completely baseless -- in which case you would basically be admitting that such perceptions are, in affect, invalid (and if that's the case, then you might want to correct yourself).

How about this -- instead of dedicating any more board space to this, if you still want to address this, then just PM me.   

[Tshern]

Sorry from throwing this out without evidence, but how many historians of Jesus' time leave him out? Ignore the fact that I believe the Bible is nothing but a really big bullshit story.

[wotmaniac]

Sorry from throwing this out without evidence,

you're forgiven   

but how many historians of Jesus' time leave him out? Ignore the fact that I believe the Bible is nothing but a really big bullshit story.

Well, there are (IIRC) several references to him in contemporary Roman records (just going off the top of my head, from that well of "general knowledge" that I have floating around inside my head -- oh wait, there's even a something about that in one of Innabinder's links   )
Let me see if I remember my sunday-school lessons correctly:
The Jews were up in arms with him because they saw him as a blasphemer (well, more so the church leadership than the commoners; but whatever).
The Romans viewed his claim of "king of the Jews" as being seditious and treasonous -- which came with the penalty of death.  However, they probably wouldn't have even bothered with him were it not for the insistence of the Temple elders (who saw Jesus as a threat to their power structure).

Given that, how much documentation do you think that there would really be?  He was one of thousands of criminals that were put to death; one of thousands of (conceivably)seditious individuals.  Furthermore, he was (probably) also one of thousands that spoke out against the Temple leadership; one of -- frankly, given the context, I would be surprised if he did get any more attention than he did at the time.

BTW -- I see the bible as a collection of stories, allegories if you will, set against a historical backdrop.  I not entirely concerned with whether or not specific event actually occurred -- I see the historical backdrop as simply providing context and insight about the contemporary culture(s), which aids in interpretation.
For instance, there are records from various cultures/societies from around the time of Moses that talks about the Hebrews (which is to say that they were considered inferior; what with only having one god, and all).  There is also evidence corroborating the existence of various biblical figures -- but that does not do anything to prove that the Bible is the "infallible Word of God"; nor does it mean that the Bible is an official historical record.
I say this -- it's got some good anecdotes, and provides some context as to the "truths" that it attempts to provide.
However, if you look to the deeper meaning (as opposed to ripping apart the particular verbiage or semantics), then I'm hard-pressed to disagree with the core values -- mainly the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus.  Seriously, what issue can people have with them (I know that I'm gonna get a lot of flack, but I am prepared to defend the core values that I interpret them to represent -- even from the view of an atheist/agnostic).

Speaking of the 10 Commandments ....
Also, I found this to be hilarious (especially the end part)

[altpersona]

10 things about commandments, very nice. ty..

i consider the bible historicalish fictionish.. i wont go as far as to say the minute details are correct, but people n places in the NT stand up pretty well to scrutiny.

not as much w/ the OT, but abit..

on the topic of Core Values. i call bs, or at least O rlly?

its fair to base your core on the teaching of jesus, thats fairly defensible.

once you break over to the OT and leviticus/exodus things get hairy.

so, exodus has the 10c, fine and dandy, very few of gods rules to break before that... a few, but far between.

once exodus concludes, leviticus opens up a major can of worms. these rules all come after the 10c. as we all know very well, the last version is the one to use..

not only are you not supposed to kill or covet, but no shaving either. this is the word of god isnt it. he/she/it/they said dont f'kn shave, or cut your hair. thats a core value from the horses mouth.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:27&version=NIV

so, where do you draw the line.

did god mean free will to be, free to pick which of my laws to heed?

to me, it looks like towards the end, jesus says its ok to 1,2, skip a few, but isnt this driving 3mph over the limit hoping you wont get called on it?

[wotmaniac]

I understand what you are saying about the b.s. rules -- and, on the surface, you have a very good point. (of course, I did specifically only mention the 10-C on purpose -- and for good reason; but anyway ...)

However, I think that it is important to understand the context(s) involved:
- The 10-C (and Exodus in general) were "laws" that governed ethics and morality.  Of course, even here, there are some things that, on the surface, may seem absurd; but if put in proper context, it tends to make a little more sense.
- Leviticus, on the other hand, had more to do with aesthetics.  While much of this "law" may seem silly today, it still had its place as being relevant to the culture.

But, as far as the OT goes, I was focusing on the 10-C (and sure, why not the rest of Exodus) to examine the ethics and morality codes; and to discuss the universal truths that transcend the religious (you know, because I get tired of seeing the different sides trying to strangle each other).

On a related side-note:
I find that the following 2 sites to provide interesting point-counterpoint (though some of both cross over in to the ridiculous):
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/
(just for prior clarification, the ".org" is for; the ".com" is against)

As far as any apparent contradiction between Jesus' teachings and the OT -- (IMO) Jesus wasn't necessarily trying to reinvent the wheel; he was merely trying to challenge the status quo in an effort to get people to actually think.

[yellerSumner]

613 commandments.

613 commandments for Jews.

If more of you could at least point out the "for Jews" part instead of consistently point out you think the Bible is a steaming pile, then maybe you wouldn't get such knee jerk reactions from Christians.


Christian (Disciples of Christ)
I've been at my church since the crib. It's a second family for me. Went through my most Christfaggy period during highschool. Went through my most faith challenging experience during my freshman(/only) year at college, a Christian (Mennonite) college. (Combination rape/Introduction to Biblical Studies class. Fun times ) That's been about five years.

No, I'm really not sure why I'm joining the discussion.

[altpersona]

there ya go, 615 items w/ as much merit as false iteming. 

the NT is pretty clear that there is only 2 rules that matter, 1 if your catholic.

then there is the issue of endings the tradition w/ jesus.

the bible presents several representatives of god, like jesus. so why rule out Mo or smith.  the NT is pretty clear that jesus would be the last, but the established pattern is that god gets to change her mind (ergo is a girl).

[wotmaniac]

alright, this is not going the in the direction that I had hoped.

perhaps I just picked a bad topic (though, I guess I did get the answers necessary to draw some helpful conclusions).


New topic:
gov't-imposed nanny state -versus- liberty and self-reliance

I'll start off with 3 quotes:

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

The first 2 are from Benjamin Franklin; the last one from Thomas Jefferson

okay -- let's see what you guys got.

[Bauglir]

On the topic of commandments...

[altpersona]

bauglir, nice.

wot,

idk what a nanny state is exactly. are you talking about 1984/paranoia, or easy poverty?

for many people the 'pursuit of happiness' is fat/dumb/happy. or freedom being = nothing left to loose.. the poor thus being the ultimate in personal freedom.

i know of no one (non criminal/clinically insane) who 'has to' live in gov housing, its pretty easy to go off the grid and be homeless.

point being, 1984 is a myth/story. the gov provides options for its citizens, with out regard to productivity / social responsibility / morals...

the gov dosnt 'impose' anything. if the gov does something the citizenry opposes greatly, it gets changed. either via voting, lobbying, or revolution.

the basic idea of 'imposing a nanny state' is flawed in every aspect.

would it be cool, if every citizen could work 255 days a year and pay an equal / equitable tax burden and what not, sure, but thats as bs as 1984 is.

were a melted pot, we encourage variety. gimme your poor / weak/ sick / huddled masses.

its odd to say everyone welcome, but not you lazy s o b's. and such..

without those huddled masses no one could 'live the american dream'. the dream not being, being born a Kennedy, but being born to squaller, and bootstrapping your self.

its a rare story, and it takes lots of masses to produce that rare gem.