Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat. Do You Have Biblical Morals? Take More Quizzes
I knew I got that one about cutting my wife’s hand off wrong.
So you took an inherantly biaed quiz that is engineered to make the Bible look barbaric ( an dno doubt will say it is barbaric, even rhough you havent studied it) and now boast about it.Come off it, the questrions where unanswerable because of their slant.
They're all straight out of the bible.Are you saying some bits of the bible should be followed and others shouldn't?How do you tell which is which?
They're all straight out of the bible.Are you saying some bits of the bible should be followed and others shouldn't?How do you tell which is which?Matt, this is what I mean by arrogant.As much as they are "Straight out of the Bible they are also reworded, and decontextualised.Take for exampel the quesiton fo what you'd do if angels visited you and an angry mob wanted ot Rape them.Do you relaly think its "Bibel mroalirty" to offer your Preteen daughers to the mob? You will note thatthis is what Lot did, btu you'd be wrong in a few points. The firt beign that nothign in the text reveals their age.The second part is, nothignin the text says God wanted Lot to offer his daughters to the monb. The Quiz basiclaly sys Bible morality demands we do this even though it doesn't. It also forgets ot look at the ancient culture that Lot lived in that promoted his actuon.So hat we have is an islate dincident in whch a single man makes a choie all onhis own in a culture in which people would view Angels as their Lords and woudl see htemselves as expendable in the service of this greater good beign translated into "Bibel mroality".Is that really fair? Of coruse not. The whole point of the Quixz was to depict the Bibles morality as evil, and so the QUiz author cherr ypicked exampels and worded htem in such a way as to meetthat end.This is flagrantly dishonest, and the quiz doens't acutlaly reflect Biblical morality. It doens't matter than the exampekls are straigh tout of the bible, since they are reworded to depict soemthign that just didn't happen the waythe quiz implies, and since they often include individual choices rather than moral admonitions, and often get the admonitiosn wrong.Take for example the killign children for not cleanign upo their room example. The Bible never says this. THe idea that ones children shoudl be stoend for disonbedince ddnt' extend to minor infractions, but to outright rejection fo paternal authority in a time in which the survival of the extended family and the tribe depended on social cohesion. THis isn't about a 12 year od not cleanign his room or takign the trash out, its baotu outright rejeciton of paternal authority and order.The Quiz didn't reflect the reality of the text or the itme it was written in.So no, matt, the exampels aren't "Right out of the bible", rather htey are distortions of whats int he Bible, cherry pickled exampels retold in order to mock and degrade the Bibel and show it to be immoral.But thats hardly somethign you'd care about since you like peopel to view the bibel as evil and immoral so little things like Honesty don't matter, do they?
Zarove,You’re doing a lot of interpretation here. That’s precisely the point of the test: to show that the bible must interpreted and cannot simply be taken at face value.It’s a challenge to those who would claim the bible is some sort of instruction manual for how to live out lives. It clearly is not.
Zarove,You’re doing a lot of interpretation here. That’s precisely the point of the test: to show that the bible must interpreted and cannot simply be taken at face value.It’s a challenge to those who would claim the bible is some sort of instruction manual for how to live out lives. It clearly is not.Matt, perhaps Im not beign clear. Really I suspect your just filterign what I say mentally.But, when you say the Quiz is "Straight out of the Bible" you are lying. Can you understand that? You are diliberatley telling an untruth.You know very well that the Biblical references made in the Quiz hadve been reworded in order to depict them as absurd and cruel, and anytime you reword soemthing its not "Straight out of the source". When the quiz author rewrote portiosn fo the text, the informaiton was filtered, it is not direclty form the Bible, you lie if you say it is.You also lie if you want to pretend its an accurate assessment of what the Bible actually says.No, Matt, I'm not doign any interpretation, the Quiz is. The QUiz is interpretign passages in the worst possible way after cherry pickign that which it can exploit to make its point abotu how bad the Bibel is, and twistign those passages to make thm sound horrific.I am not myself engaged in that.As for interpetation, every tiem you read anythign its intepretation, but that doenst seem to make it wrogn in other venues.What you have shown here is your unwillignness to use Logic and Critical thinking, as much as you claim you would, and instead your preferance for mockery and distortion.
Zarove,Of course the quiz is interpreting the passages in the worst possible way.Again, that's the point.Christians make a habit of interpreting the bible in the best possible way, ignoring all the bits (like these) that they don't like.And you really want to talk about logic and critical thinking? They clearly don't enter into this.If they did, the bible would be largely ignored on the basis of its being corrupted after centuries of translations, rewrites, and manipulation for political purposes.From a critical thinking standpoint, it's not a document to be taken too seriously.
Zarove,Of course the quiz is interpreting the passages in the worst possible way.Again, that's the point.No its not. The point of the QUiz is to mock the Bible and to put in the head of the Quiz Taker the idea that Biblcial morality is horrible, and to reinforce the Anti-Bible, Anti-Christian sentiment that the author of the quiz possesses.Basiclaly, tis like the old Anti-Semetic hate literature issued by Hitler.The point is just to make fun of osmethign whilst presentign it as absurd.But that doens't work since the exampels it chose are actually decontextualised and distorted.In other words, the Quiz is beign duplicitous, and so are you hereChristians make a habit of interpreting the bible in the best possible way, ignoring all the bits (like these) that they don't like.But, Matt, this is why I say your a liar. Christians actulaly don't ignore these bits. In fact, I've sat throguh lessons on Lot that explicitly mentioend his actions withthe Angels and his Dauighters.The truth is that these "Ignored" bits of the bible arne't ignroed at all. What your presentign here is a STandard Militant Atheist myth that Christians ignroe portios fo the Biel tyeey find unpleasant, based on your pretended situation hat you rerad the bibel for what it really says whislt CHristaisn don't.The toruble is, the Quiz presents only samples it has distorted, the manipulation of which prevents the quiz form accuraitonly reflectign the Morals of the people its makign reference to, like Lot, much less acutal Bilical Morality. (Since when do Christians think Lots actiosn are a moral example, for instance?)The "Ignored" bits arent soo mcuh ignroed as they are read hoenslty, unliek you and the authori of the quiz seem to be willign to do.And you really want to talk about logic and critical thinking? They clearly don't enter into this.Yes it does. The whole arogant notion that Logic and Criticla thinkign are used by Ahtiest sliek you, and not by CHridtaisn liek me, also gets pretty old. In fact, its already dead.This quiz is not base don logic and Critical thinking, and if one acutlaly used logic and critical thinking one woudl find value in the Bible, even as an Atheist. Pity your incapable of that, Matt.If they did, the bible would be largely ignored on the basis of its being corrupted after centuries of translations, rewrites, and manipulation for political purposes.Not this rubbish again. Matt, the let look at these claims. FIrts, the claim that the Biel has been rewritten and manipualted for political purposes. Well, can you prove this assertion? I realise its a commn one and "Everyone knwos it" will be your likely answer, but I woudl really liek to see evidence of this.Becuase, it is my understandign that the OPriginal Language texts of the Bible have been lagley rpeserved, and show little divergence in soruce texts.For the Old Testament we have the Mesoratic tradition, as well as the Septuagint, which whre later both confiormed ot be accurate by the Dead Sea Scrolls.Although there are divergences, they are usually minor and the text shows no evidence f tmapering for political purposes, or for asny diliberat epurpose.In fact, the transmission hisoty shows a surpisingly accurate preservation stream, with only inconseauential detaisl beign slightly altered, liek the exact numebr of hroemen at a certian battle or the spellign of soemone s name.For the NEw TEstament, we have ove 5000 Manuscripts form diffeirng lines that sprewad accross Arabia and Europe an Africa, and, again, although minor vairences offuce, such as sayng CHrist Jesus rather than Jesus CHrist, the overall text is 95% reliable and noen ofthe variences effect the central themes and purposes of the texts.DIspite the centries between copies and diffeirng locations, we find no actual evidence of diliberate manipulation. If you look at Codex Siniticus and Codex Vaticanus, you iwll see that they actually lien up nicley with other streams in both the Byzantine and Alexandran line.As for Translations, this too is a red herring, Matt. The modern translaitsn we have arne't translated out of Translaitons. EVen the 1611 King James Bible was taken form the Mesopratic Hebrew and Koine Greek.Modern Bibel translations, from the British Revised Verison, tot he American Standard Verison, tot he Revised STandard Verison, to the nIV, are all taken formt he original sources with painstakign cholarhsip incvovled in years of work to ensure the most accurate translaitons posisbel form the best available texts from the ancient world.So on what Baiss can you say its been corrupted?From a critical thinking standpoint, it's not a document to be taken too seriously.Base don what? your predetermiend bias agisnt it?You haven't offred any reaosn to take you seriosuly. In fact, the Bibel isnt even a signel DOcuent but a colleciton of between 39 (For Tahnahk) or 78 DOcuments, plural, with a well established line of Transmission and early manuscript famileis we can trace, and show accuracy pf preservation.Yet you want ot pretend the Bibel is a signle document tat has been corrupted by translaitosn and rewrites on the basis of nothign at all.And you wanto claim that Critical thinkign is repsoncible?This isnt Critical thinking, this is just you wantign to slag off agaisn the Bible.
Post a Comment