Espozo wrote:
I was implying I was loosing my temper.
Oh, o.k., then I misunderstood you here.
Espozo wrote:
How would you know if you're not a Christian yourself, regardless of knowing the Bible?
I have been a Christian for many years.
But even if not: You don't need to be a Christian yourself to know which Christian knows his Bible and which doesn't. Do you need to be a brain surgeon to be able to tell that your dentist doesn't know anything about brain surgery?
Espozo wrote:
What's the difference? Is stupid a measure of brain function, or knowledge?
Depends on the situation.
Espozo wrote:
If you do it to someone who believes in these things in the same manner you've done here, then yes.
In which other situation, apart from the Bible, would you apply this rule?
If somebody told you, in a totally serious voice, that
Tupac is still alive and that he saw him on 42nd street selling Biggie t-shirts, you wouldn't be allowed to snicker and to mock him because of that totally outrageous claim? You would be required to nod in an understanding and respectful manner, lest you want to be seen as arrogant?
Sorry, I don't believe you for a second. If somebody came to you with a totally stupid claim that is
not connected to religion, you wouldn't take this guy seriously. You wouldn't consider yourself arrogant if you tell him that you think he talks bullshit. This whole arrogance argument is
only ever used when it comes to religion. You
never address this when, for example, "South Park" makes fun of Canadians.
Espozo wrote:
DRW wrote:
At least I don't call people shithead
No, you just tell them they don't know shit.
So what? This is not an insult. Yes, it's a strong word, but it just means "you don't know anything about it". The "shit" in the sentence is not supposed to be a property of your person. If you want to turn the metaphor into a literal description, it would mean: "You don't even know anything that is as unimportant as shit, so you don't know anything about stuff that is more important than shit."
But calling somebody shithead is an insult because, if you transform the metaphor in this case, it means: "Instead of a brain, your head is filled with a pile of shit."
You see the difference? I don't give a shit if somebody uses strong words. Somebody can say "shit" and "fuck" as often as he likes and still not insult anybody. But you apply these words to actual people.
93143 wrote:
In other words, the Bible is considered to be the story of God's interaction with humans from the perspective of said humans, not direct dictation like the Koran.
Sure, many stories are just stories and not God speaking. But there
are passages that are attributed directly to God: Whenever it is written "And the Lord spoke to Moses", this is followed by a text that is supposed to be God's words. Likewise, the whole prophetic texts include God's word in a similar way as the Koran.
But even if
this is just from the perspective of humans as well: So, what? In the end there are still only two possibilities: Did the story really happen as it is written there or didn't it happen as written?
It doesn't matter who writes John F. Kennedy's story: The historical fact of his death only allows for
one explanation: Either he was shot by one person or by two. There might be many
theories, but there is only one
reality: Kennedy wasn't simultaneously shot by two persons
and by only one. Likewise, a commandment is either the will of God or it isn't.
But I don't really care either since I don't believe that God exists.
Yes, I know the whole "inspiration" theory and "God's words through human minds" etc. I find this to be a very weak explanation.
Remember how Jesus quotes God from the Old Testament as if the Thora was dictated like the Koran? Obviously, Jesus didn't share the Catholic theology. When the Pharisees or Satan tried to use a commandment against him, he didn't say: "Yeah, but that's just the words of humans. God didn't necessarily say that and it needs to be seen in its cultural context." His answers are always based on the idea that the words themselves were actually spoken by God.
When they argue about the Sabbath, they merely discuss what is and what isn't allowed during the Sabbath. But they never question the idea that the Sabbath commandments in the Thora were actually verbally spoken by God to Moses.
93143 wrote:
(Note that while the prohibition of homosexual behaviour is sustained in Catholic doctrine, the death penalty associated with it in Leviticus is not.)
So, how does this work? "Hey, guys, I think that the first half-sentence is what God actually thinks and what he communicated to the people. But the second half, that's an interposition by humans. God didn't say this second part of the sentence."
The Catholic Church invented a bunch of rules, so that they can pick and choose what they want to follow and what not. But the fact that they invented these rules doesn't mean that these rules make any sense. Therefore, when I tell somebody to be consistent in his faith, I do so by basing it on things that are logical to me, not on Catholic doctrines that I find inconsistent as well.
93143 wrote:
As far as I can tell, you seem to be deliberately needling him. It comes across as a passive-aggressive attempt to cause another person mental anguish.
I started with a mere correction:
"Yes, the Bible
does explicitly condemn homosexuality, not just some unnamed sexual behavior, as you imply. Besides, if you say it might be a translation error, what do you believe might be written in the actual text?"
That was a legitimate question.
Then he totally lost his shit and threw a tantrum with his huge, colored, all-caps text. From then on, I merely answered his posts. He could have stopped the discussion at any time, but he felt the need to belittle and insult me, calling me his enemy or shithead or saying that I talk bullshit.
So, why should I go easy on him? Because he's the holy believer and I'm the filthy infidel and I have to respect his noble faith? Nope. If somebody acts like a brat, I treat him like a brat.