Valid Question: Is the Bible erotic literature?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

<all the stuff in bold>

'God is love' is actually a very modern ideology that is purposely obscure and what Christians often use as a 'get out of argument free' card. God isn't love, God is a grey-haired bearded giant who watches over you from the clouds and he created everything. Love is real, don't confuse the two.
I could counter your argument by saying "'God is judgment' is actually a very ancient ideology that is purposely obscure and what atheists often use as a 'get out of argument free' card. God isn't judgment; God is a benevolent creator that wants nothing more than to have a personal relationship with each of his human creations."

In reality, the Bible presents two aspects of God, and not in as segregated (Old/New Testaments) a manner as you probably believe.  You've admitted that you haven't read the Bible, so aren't you just picking and choosing personal opinions and things you've heard from other atheists and assuming that's the whole story? Isn't parroting other atheists no different from what you accuse Christians of doing?

And what do you mean, "Love is real"?

Nope, there are many calendars that pre-dated the existance of Jesus. The Gregorian calendar just happens to be the one most people use today. Thanks, Catholics.
What's with both you and Vjichti acting like I said "The only valid calendar in the world is the one that Jesus himself created"? I didn't say anything of the sort.

Yes, religion is fascinating... But I won't read the Bible because I already know the story. I'd be wasting my time. Besides, it has bad reviews. If only there was a film adaptation directed by and starring Mel Gibson...
Attempting to hide your ignorance with sarcasm doesn't make you less ignorant.

I don't think God can do those things either.
So anything bad in the world only happens because God is powerless to prevent it? Or what are you saying?

If beliefs are not a part of your own self-discovery free from forceful influences then they are the really the inhereted beliefs of someone else. Or are you going to deny that your beliefs are the result of being raised and educated in a Christian environment?
Mangled, with you these are the only ways that a person can get their belief system:
1) Grow up thinking independently and ultimately agree with you.
2) Grow up being led around by the nose and ultimately disagree with you.

Funny how the validity of a person's beliefs and choices are defined exclusively by your own opinions.  Incidentally, is your "grey-haired God" belief really the result of your own self-discovery?

[Boblekonvolutt]

And what do you mean, "Love is real"?

God is as real as love in the way that they're both something we feel, and exist only in our brains. However, God claims to be more. A lot more, in fact....

What's with both you and Vjichti acting like I said "The only valid calendar in the world is the one that Jesus himself created"? I didn't say anything of the sort.

No, but you indirectly argued that the earth is 6000 years old. Nice.

Attempting to hide your ignorance with sarcasm doesn't make you less ignorant.

The great thing about being ignorant is that you're oblivious to being it. The great thing about sarcasm... We'll, you see where I'm going.

Incidentally, is your "grey-haired God" belief really the result of your own self-discovery?

While I doubt it is in his case... Going by what the bible says about it, no doubt is Gods physical shape a man. Wisdom is something that traditionally* was attributed to older people, so grey hair would make sense. Old men have been in power for ages, so God wouldn't make much sense as a woman, etc.

* That was before average life expectancy reached the drooling, diaper wearing levels we rich people enjoy today. Still, partially grey hair/beard is often associated with class, style and other male keywords.

[Shard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEu07RzZgbU All Hail Jimmy Carr.

Has this discussion gone a bit out of context? Wasn't it meant to be about whether the bible is erotic literature? I think that argument above belong in the Religious debate thread.

And as for my outright opinion to the threads question. No. Its is not erotic literature and it's not really a sensible or valid question.

[ds dude]

What the hell are you talking about shard? It can be viewed in the perspective of erotic literature. The Bible can be viewed in any way possible, there's no real fact as to what the bible is.

[Smegma]

Question!

Is the Very Hungry Caterpillar erotic literature to a zoophile?

[Mangled*]

I could counter your argument by saying "'God is judgment' is actually a very ancient ideology that is purposely obscure and what atheists often use as a 'get out of argument free' card. God isn't judgment; God is a benevolent creator that wants nothing more than to have a personal relationship with each of his human creations."

In reality, the Bible presents two aspects of God, and not in as segregated (Old/New Testaments) a manner as you probably believe.  You've admitted that you haven't read the Bible, so aren't you just picking and choosing personal opinions and things you've heard from other atheists and assuming that's the whole story? Isn't parroting other atheists no different from what you accuse Christians of doing?

And what do you mean, "Love is real"?

I crossed out the untrue stuff. But this all basically comes around to what I've been saying on this forum for years. Every individual religion is just a theory, and what they all have in common is that they have no evidence to back them up.

Atheists have more merit to throw their opinions around because they have logic and science to back up their beliefs. Facts back up facts. Yet, I've never seen an atheist thrust leaflets into people's hands as they're trying to shop.

What's with both you and Vjichti acting like I said "The only valid calendar in the world is the one that Jesus himself created"? I didn't say anything of the sort.

This is what you said:

As far as the date thing goes, how would you expect them to keep track? There's no BC/AD system for the Old Testament (obviously), and the New Testament was written before Jesus' birth was used as a basis.  However, what the Bible does have is detailed genealogies (this person lived for this long before having this kid who lived this long, etc. etc.), so dates CAN actually be determined that way.

It would seem you had no clue that calendars had existed before Jesus. Which I maintain is what you thought.

Attempting to hide your ignorance with sarcasm doesn't make you less ignorant.

At least I have sarcasm.

I don't think God can do those things either.
So anything bad in the world only happens because God is powerless to prevent it? Or what are you saying?

Graham implied that God could stop a bullet. If God is everything that the Bible says he is then he had the power to stop that stray bullet from killing that innocent child inside that church.

Mangled, with you these are the only ways that a person can get their belief system:
1) Grow up thinking independently and ultimately agree with you.
2) Grow up being led around by the nose and ultimately disagree with you.

Finally you're seeing sense. This is how the world works. Memorize this, it may come in handy.

Funny how the validity of a person's beliefs and choices are defined exclusively by your own opinions.  Incidentally, is your "grey-haired God" belief really the result of your own self-discovery?

The validity of a person's beliefs are defined by if they have any plausibility, logical explanation or evidence to back them up. I don't believe in God for exactly the same reasons that I don't believe in ghosts, zombies or the tooth-fairy.

The "grey-haired God" I talk of is the one described in your religion and depicted in numerous paintings which are much much older than you are.

Question!

Is the Very Hungry Caterpillar erotic literature to a zoophile?

I love that book. 

[demoniac93]

@Mangled*: Actually, God didn't stop that bullet from hitting that boy in that church, because it would be equal to forcing people to believe in him, cause people would get scared, they'd realize heaven and hell is real, and no one wants to suffer for eternity.
God is also about justice, and justice is about freedom.
We're free to choose whether we want to believe in his existence or not, and therefore we cannot blame anyone but ourselves for the consequences.

[chutem]

So suppose god did stop the bullet, how should anyone know.

[Graham]

The world HAS developed difernetly then what God intended according to the bible, since that contains the rules and regulations, which were not followed by all people and therefore we live in a diferent society then what was intended, once again in relation to the bible.

Whats the use of a god when we can control our own lives?

Can you stop a bullet going through your brain? Can you stop rain from falling? Can you make the sun rise or set?


There are so many things about our lives we can't control, to think we can is foolish. Religion or not.

On the question about Bible being outdated. It's not, the same problems people had then, we have now. The Bible actually has something to say about this issue:

Ecclesiastes 1:9:
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.(NIV)

WTF. Learn to argue please.
He specifically sayd: since that contains the rules and regulations, which were not followed by all people and therefore we live in a diferent society.

Keyword: people
not followed by all people and therefore we live in a diferent society

I seriously don´t understand why you start talking about rain and sun. How are they relevant, if the topic was people not following god´s rules? Thats a prime example of taking things out of context.

Are you saying people then ("jesus´" time) had to deal with abortions, organ transplants, sex change, etc?

PS. I dont much care for bible quotes. Especially when the same thing is repeated three times over in a sentence.

I had a post all typed out but my retarded laptop decided to freak out and I lost it. Anyway the jist of it:

*Calm down
*I commented on what you are saying I am ignoring.
*Just because it doesn't meet your "standards" means nothing.
*Ignoring Bible verses in a debate about the Bible is like trying to ignore water in the ocean.

This ain't my first rodeo, buddy.

[ValiS]

I had a post all typed out but my retarded laptop decided to freak out and I lost it. Anyway the jist of it:

*Calm down  down from where? please dont get personal. its not gonna help your "argument"
*I commented on what you are saying I am ignoring. this sentence makes no sense
*Just because it doesn't meet your "standards" means nothing. what doesnt meet my standards? what means nothing? please express yourself so that others may understand what you mean.
*Ignoring Bible verses in a debate about the Bible is like trying to ignore water in the ocean. I couldn´t have commented on the bible "verse" had I ignored it, get your logic straight. besides, you can not use bible verses AS AN ARGUMENT in a debate about the bible. you can argue about the verses, but the verse itself does not prove anything. thats common sense

This ain't my first rodeo, buddy. it´s a rodeo now? cool!

[Mangled*]

@Mangled*: Actually, God didn't stop that bullet from hitting that boy in that church, because it would be equal to forcing people to believe in him, cause people would get scared, they'd realize heaven and hell is real, and no one wants to suffer for eternity.
God is also about justice, and justice is about freedom.
We're free to choose whether we want to believe in his existence or not, and therefore we cannot blame anyone but ourselves for the consequences.

I'm sure if he was the interventionalist God as the Bible describes him to be he could have stopped that bullet without alerting any attention, don't you? It was a stray bullet fired in the air at night, nobody would know if it just disappeared or landed somewhere else. But it, by pure chance, literally in a million-to-one scenario, flew up and then back down over a distance of 3 miles and then penetrated all the way through a church roof and precisely into an innocent child's head.

The slightest breeze in a different direction would have averted it. Or if the gun was pointed at a different angle by a fraction of milimeter.

You can't defend that. Graham definitely can't defend that.

Lets not forget that in many of the Bible's stories, God intervenes, makes miracles and interacts with humanity, and never really in a subtle way.

[demoniac93]

@Mangled*: Actually, God didn't stop that bullet from hitting that boy in that church, because it would be equal to forcing people to believe in him, cause people would get scared, they'd realize heaven and hell is real, and no one wants to suffer for eternity.
God is also about justice, and justice is about freedom.
We're free to choose whether we want to believe in his existence or not, and therefore we cannot blame anyone but ourselves for the consequences.

I'm sure if he was the interventionalist God as the Bible describes him to be he could have stopped that bullet without alerting any attention, don't you? It was a stray bullet fired in the air at night, nobody would know if it just disappeared or landed somewhere else. But it, by pure chance, literally in a million-to-one scenario, flew up and then back down over a distance of 3 miles and then penetrated all the way through a church roof and precisely into an innocent child's head.

The slightest breeze in a different direction would have averted it. Or if the gun was pointed at a different angle by a fraction of milimeter.

You can't defend that. Graham definitely can't defend that.

Lets not forget that in many of the Bible's stories, God intervenes, makes miracles and interacts with humanity, and never really in a subtle way.

It was before we were so obsessed with out own pitiful logic and theories.
Perhaps God didn't cause a breeze of wind cause he wants us to remember that we can and will die at some point, and nobody knows when that is, except for him.

[Demonic]

Our own pitiful logic and theories made it possible to defeat thousands of diseases and viruses, to feed much of the population, to lengthen life expectancy and reduce child death, to get to the moon and cut the travel time between places on opposite sides of the globe by previously inconceivable amounts with unimaginable methods.

That kind of beats the kosher diet, circumcision and not touching women on their period, regardless of flashy miracles and force fed fairy tales.

[Shard]

What the hell are you talking about shard? It can be viewed in the perspective of erotic literature. The Bible can be viewed in any way possible, there's no real fact as to what the bible is.

A small section of the bible can, but not the bible itself, also 50% of it, is definitely not erotic, that's the NEW Testament. Not alot of  the old Testament even is. While the bible can be viewed as many different things, I think it's safe to say that it CANNOT be seen as erotic literature. But if you think it can, then I guess we can call the Harry Potter books The Definitive Guide To Magic....

[Antipathy]

After reading about 10-20 percent of the Bible for a class, I can safely say that, no, it's not erotic literature. Sex scenes are very briefly described and there aren't that many to begin with, especially when taking the lenght of the book into account. However there was this one book on the Bible, I think it was written by king Salomon, there was not much in that book that didn't have something to do with sex. However, there are 66 books on the Bible if I remember correctly, and one doesn't make the entire thing an erotic literature novel.

Before you jump to conclusions, I wouldn't call myself a christian. However, the Bible is a very interesting book, you should read it, or at least the most important parts. Individual books aren't very long, especially on the New Testament side.

[demoniac93]

Our own pitiful logic and theories made it possible to defeat thousands of diseases and viruses, to feed much of the population, to lengthen life expectancy and reduce child death, to get to the moon and cut the travel time between places on opposite sides of the globe by previously inconceivable amounts with unimaginable methods.

That kind of beats the kosher diet, circumcision and not touching women on their period, regardless of flashy miracles and force fed fairy tales.

Did that logic stop wars? World hunger? Crime?
Accept it, half of what science creates we use to destroy life...

[ValiS]

@Mangled*: Actually, God didn't stop that bullet from hitting that boy in that church, because it would be equal to forcing people to believe in him, cause people would get scared, they'd realize heaven and hell is real, and no one wants to suffer for eternity.
God is also about justice, and justice is about freedom.
We're free to choose whether we want to believe in his existence or not, and therefore we cannot blame anyone but ourselves for the consequences.

I'm sure if he was the interventionalist God as the Bible describes him to be he could have stopped that bullet without alerting any attention, don't you? It was a stray bullet fired in the air at night, nobody would know if it just disappeared or landed somewhere else. But it, by pure chance, literally in a million-to-one scenario, flew up and then back down over a distance of 3 miles and then penetrated all the way through a church roof and precisely into an innocent child's head.

The slightest breeze in a different direction would have averted it. Or if the gun was pointed at a different angle by a fraction of milimeter.

You can't defend that. Graham definitely can't defend that.

Lets not forget that in many of the Bible's stories, God intervenes, makes miracles and interacts with humanity, and never really in a subtle way.

It was before we were so obsessed with out own pitiful logic and theories.
Perhaps God didn't cause a breeze of wind cause he wants us to remember that we can and will die at some point, and nobody knows when that is, except for him.

I think the pitiful theory is yours: perhaps god wanted us to know we will die.

yeah.... like we didn´t already know! besides, had the pitiful theories of scientists not developed computers and the internet, we would not even know that some random kid got hit by a random bullet in a random place.

ON TOPIC
bible is not erotic literature, because erotic is supposed to be beautiful. the sexual offences the bible describes are not, they are supposed to scare us.  maybe someone gets turned on by bible-sex too, i wouldn´t know, I have not met a christian yet (one that ACTS as well as talks according to the teachings)

[Demonic]

Our own pitiful logic and theories made it possible to defeat thousands of diseases and viruses, to feed much of the population, to lengthen life expectancy and reduce child death, to get to the moon and cut the travel time between places on opposite sides of the globe by previously inconceivable amounts with unimaginable methods.

That kind of beats the kosher diet, circumcision and not touching women on their period, regardless of flashy miracles and force fed fairy tales.

Did that logic stop wars? World hunger? Crime?
Accept it, half of what science creates we use to destroy life...

Statistically speaking, our achievements have saved a hundred- or thousandfold more human lives than what they took.

I'm as much of a neo-primitivist as the next fight club enthusiast, but progression got us out of the world of caves, huts and the daily struggle with the better evolved beasts of the animal kingdom to a place where the majority of the world's population's biggest problem is even still nowhere on the same scale as 'big bear wants to eat what you want to eat'.

[ValiS]

Did that logic stop wars? World hunger? Crime?
Accept it, half of what science creates we use to destroy life...

This argument completely ignores the fact that the worlds population keeps growing.
Actually, this "world hunger" (are YOU hungry?? in front of your computer screen..) is kind of caused by this population growth, which would not have happened without scientific progress. So this logic has not stopped world hunger yet, because it only recently helped create it. But saying it never will stop it is just... arrogant.

Thats kind of the point of evolution (of society in this case): you cant momentarily create a society where everyone is satisfied and happy. It takes lots of time and gradual steps, just like the evolution of species. Sometimes i wonder if religious people have a concept of FUTURE. All you talk about is the past and the present, only notion of future is the end of the world or the coming of the messiah (or some other dude). But even looking at the past, it should be clear that science WILL keep uncovering how the world works, and saying we know enough about it ALREADY to say science got it all wrong is just... short sighted.

Not to mention, u can say the same thing about religion: it has caused as much hate as it has love (although personally I think that love based on religion, if you love because Jesus told you to, is not real love. Love without anyone telling you to - isn´t that more precious and real?)

And if you dont like what sciense has achieved, why dont you go and live with the apes, who you despise so (for reminding you of yourself) ?

War and crime are just human nature (and not just human, but the nature of all... nature), but the fact that most of us frown upon war is evidence that we are evolving... As a species.

[demoniac93]

Dear God...This is just stupid to argue about...
I doubt I'll get my point across...Nvm.