The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is a hindrance to the betterment of man and more bibles (written in any language) only increases the divides that already exist because of religion.

JohnnyC: The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is a hindrance to the betterment of man and more bibles (written in any language) only increases the divides that already exist because of religion.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the bible is unlikely to make much difference, since governments can just switch over to threats about terrorists/paedophiles/climate change/communists &c in order to maintain control over people.

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: Oh right...so god is so perfect he couldn't dicatate what he meant in the first place...so when he said send all teh geys to hell, he actually meant that they are ok?

Well, if you want to go that route, one could point out that if God were actually omnipotent and omniscient, there would have been no need to do the whole New Testament thing in the first place.

The dodge the religious use is "free will". Fallible humans received the infallible message, and corrupted it, or whatever.

The reality of the situation is that the Bible is so large, and so vague, and so open to interpretation that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. It's like a horoscope or a tarot card.

Preaching to choir here, I was just being obtuse. If you go even further you would wonder why god didn't know that it would become corrupted and adjust the message and ionflux capicitors on level 2 to compensate for the corruption. All in all it is a christian manual on how to circle jerk.

ooh... let's get back to the wealth/camel/needle discussion where fundies claim that "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land and that god was really saying, "hells, yeah - get rich, you farkers! buy that escalade with 20s!!!"

FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

FlashHarry: ooh... let's get back to the wealth/camel/needle discussion where fundies claim that "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land and that god was really saying, "hells, yeah - get rich, you farkers! buy that escalade with 20s!!!"

They spinnin', they spinnin'!

Any rediscovered forms of shame in there I should know about?

t3knomanser: The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

"literal?" oops. forgot about that.

wait - can't i take the bible literally when it supports my colossal bigotry and sybaritic lifestyle and cherry pick/"interpret" when it doesn't?

PC LOAD LETTER: Awesome. This should keep my Greek-reading atheist ass busy for a long time.

I wish I read ancient Greek. I would start a translation wiki on this or something.
Someone needs to.

t3knomanser: I tend to think of Jesus much like Socrates. Socrates probably existed, and probably said some mildly interesting things, but Plato fictionalized him to such an extent that the record and the reality are probably so divergent that one wouldn't even recognize them as having the same source.

Kind of like getting your Sarah Palin news from Fark.

caret: Unfortunately, getting rid of the bible is unlikely to make much difference, since governments can just switch over to threats about terrorists/paedophiles/climate change/communists &c in order to maintain control over people.

They do that anyway... Fear as a control mechanism isn't going away, I understand that. The thing about religion is that the focus of the fear tactic isn't going to go away. It is every bit as intangible as everything else in religion... sadly an even more effective bogeyman than "terrorist", "pedophile", or "communist" since with religion it has no face.

Of course you also have to consider that most people in government have been fully indoctrinated with religious beliefs. It isn't too hard to figure out where they learned that you can control others with fear. Maybe instead they will learn that you can control with fear, but lead with hope. Maybe some in government already know that. Yeah, I know that's highly optimistic of me to even suggest that the methods we use to rally our nation be based on hope, joy, and cooperation (through compromise and tolerance of our individual ways of life), but oh well... I guess I'm a bit of an optimist. :)

Or I suppose we can keep on hating and killing each other over who's invisible sky friend is the best...

ReverendJasen: PC LOAD LETTER: Awesome. This should keep my Greek-reading atheist ass busy for a long time.

I wish I read ancient Greek. I would start a translation wiki on this or something.
Someone needs to.

The problem with Ancient Greek (actually this is Koine Greek, which is a bit of a different animal but not by a huge amount) is that you can translate this any number of ways, sometimes arriving at a FAR different sentence. The Bible has been translated with rose-colored glasses, so highly divergent alternate translations are dismissed as false because it invalidates the bible. Circular and all that. There are some parts of the NT that clearly make ZERO sense in Greek in the context of the rest of the NT, and, for me, are evidence that this originally came from Aramaic, which was either translated to Greek text-to-text or speech-to-text, by people who didn't know Greek very well (or possibly a poorly educated bunch of Greeks who didn't know Aramaic). The Aramaic leftovers in the oldest Syriac bibles (Syriac is effectively Aramaic) actually clear up many of the contradictions in Greek NT due to split words and other artifacts of language. Paul's writings (which are probably actually his own words) are great because he was pretty fluent in Greek. It's just that "I never knew Jesus, but I...uhhh...saw him in a vision! Yeah, that's it! So trust me and follow everything I say" bit kinda muddies the pool of knowledge about that minor Doomsday Essene Rabbi Jesus and his small, but cult-like following.

Ancient Greek (and to a somewhat lesser extent Koine) is some hard-assed shiat. It is one of the most complicated and vague languages out there, with much being inferred by context. With accents and such, it's hard enough, but keep in mind that the Codex and most writings until later had no spaces, were all caps and had no accents, breathing marks or punctuation. So when (minus accents) there are about 4 different words that can come out of the same 3 letters (which happen to be the ending to a verbal or adjectival form), this is really REALLY a mess to translate. And that's not even including implied words that are occasionally missing from texts either by colloquialism, idiom or mistake.

Still, I am 37, and I am learning Attic Greek on my own. It's a big commitment, and my memory sucks these days, but I am to the point where I have on very rare occasion disagreed with my textbook's translation of something and have been proven right by checking other translations of the same passage. "Take that, Bainbridge Scholars!"

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

Even the Bible doesn't consider the Bible to be inerrant. Go read Matthew, who misquotes liberally (in both senses) from Old Testament... then follow the notes to what the OT actually says. It's a fun game to play with Bible literalists.

ReverendJasen: I wish I read ancient Greek. I would start a translation wiki on this or something.
Someone needs to.

CodexSinaiticus.com

The pages of the manuscript are all online, replete with a side-bar interpretation and a great deal of other information.

t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

So the Escalade is still out then?

Apparently this version is one of the very rare versions that include the first page it reads:


"To my darling candy

All people and places within this book are works of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental and completely unintentional."

meat0918: nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

So the Escalade is still out then?

I think it's ok if there's a Jesus fish on the back.

nesler: Not this Q.

More in character for this one:

JohnnyC: The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is a hindrance to the betterment of man and more bibles (written in any language) only increases the divides that already exist because of religion.

0/10

JohnnyC: The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it,

I got up to this point and then TMBG began singing in my head. Just as repetitive as the Persecution complex vs. Atheist religion fixation arguments but a little more peppy and joyful.

nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

It's pretty literal in Greek: It is easier for a camel to come through the aperture of a needle than a rich person (male) to go into the kindgom of God.

"come through" could be "go through" as well.

skyrous: Apparently this version is one of the very rare versions that include the first page it reads:


"To my darling candy

All people and places within this book are works of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental and completely unintentional."


"Groovy funky channel 27!"

Wow.

Careful, Fark atheists. Masturbation this intense could cause your wangs to catch fire.

Hey I found a copy of it:

Son of Thunder: Wow.

Careful, Fark atheists. Masturbation this intense could cause your wangs to catch fire.

I'd think anything that could give Christians a more accurate and complete representation of their God would be welcomed. This is what, one of the earliest known copies of the Bible?

//What do you mean parts of the life of Jesus were sacrificed to the gods of ecumenical politics?

meat0918: I'd think anything that could give Christians a more accurate and complete representation of their God would be welcomed.

Except that means their current representation isn't as accurate as possible, and that simply could not be the case. Faith.

I like old edition of bibles, because I like to know the proper ways to treat my slaves like god tells me.

It's all Greek to me!

Try the fish and tip your waitress!

heap: Darth_Lukecash: When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

consider for a moment that there are a section of people on this planet that think god wants them to cut their peckers to please him.

not getting into the 'you should/you shoudn't', or wanting to turn down the turtleneck direction w/ the thread - just something that's always overloaded my creepymeter. any god that told you to hack anything else off would be automatically assumed goofy, but this is just accepted as normal.

...and anyone who didn't hack off part of their genitals was idol-worshipping scum whom you could lie to, cheat, steal from, rape their women, enslave -- all with the blessing of god. More than that: it was a directive from god to do so.

Corvus: I like old edition of bibles, because I like to know the proper ways to treat my slaves like god tells me.

Don't forget how to treat your virgins and concubines! We shant omit these important details.

Skinkadink: We must protect the Christian megachurches!!

Otherwise hundreds of con-artist pastors will have to go back to ripping off old ladies at used car lots instead.

Religion = The ultimate grift.

If I had less morals and ethics, I would start my own "non-denominational" ministry, and attempt to rake in the bucks.

//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

Magorn: eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

Actually its really more Manichiest-Christ, unless you really want to blow your mind and read up on Mandeanism, which was a middle eastern mystery religion that very closely matched the practices that we ascribed to the Essene sect of Judaism and called their highest level initiates Nasoreans (enlightened teacher more or less). In their tradition both John the Baptist and Jesus were Nasoreans, but, here's the fun twist: John the Baptist was their most revered teacher and Jesus was reviled as basically their version of a Sith Lord who betrayed the order and turned to the dark side.


Interesting. But how could a man of peace (except when overturning merchants tables) be a Sith Lord? How did Jesus betray the order?


And to eyehate: why did Mithrains (Mithrites?) have such an obsession with Persians? Weren't persians considered pants-wearing feys, or was that just the greeks who had issues with them? and why would military dudes (brawn) be drawn to astrology (the inevitible/fate) instead of making one's own luck (brains)? or was there more to it than that?

meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

i did not know that. thank you, meat0918. but i also think i'm misunderstanding: why would atheists care?

there is no god/oversoul, therefore there is no mystical joining of two souls into one. it is just a legal contract. throw an 'Happy Contract' or 'Happy Civil Union' party. but leave the non-civil officiating and mumbo jumbo to the agnostics and theists.


why would athiests want to be an officiant? to 'marry' others?

meat0918: Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants?

Not exactly true. You can become ordained here (new window). Becoming ordained does not require you to have a belief in any god.

/my wife and I were married by an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.

themirth: I got up to this point and then TMBG began singing in my head.

Haha... did they put a little birdhouse in your soul?

Bestbank Tiger: 0/10

Post you don't agree with ≠ troll

ExperianScaresCthulhu: meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

i did not know that. thank you, meat0918. but i also think i'm misunderstanding: why would atheists care?

there is no god/oversoul, therefore there is no mystical joining of two souls into one. it is just a legal contract. throw an 'Happy Contract' or 'Happy Civil Union' party. but leave the non-civil officiating and mumbo jumbo to the agnostics and theists.


why would athiests want to be an officiant? to 'marry' others?


I can think of a few reasons, most of which I would attribute to cultural carry overs.

There is not enough room at the courthouse to have all their friends witness it for one.

It is still special to some people, even if there isn't the whole spiritual part of it. You are attempting to spend the rest of your only life with this one person. Maybe you are doing it just for the tax benefits, but I doubt it.

The courthouse is also very impersonal.

Just a few reasons

JohnnyC: meat0918: Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants?

Not exactly true. You can become ordained here (new window). Becoming ordained does not require you to have a belief in any god.

/my wife and I were married by an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.

My wife is now a Reverend of the Church of Universal Life. It was free. It's a farcical church imho, but the government is in no position to say what makes a church. They should probably be in no position to say what makes a minister either, but you need a recommendation from your congregation to become a marriage officiant in Oregon.

//She was upset that they didn't list the titles before she chose reverend. Goddess was available, as well as imam, rabbi, and druid.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: there is no god/oversoul, therefore there is no mystical joining of two souls into one. it is just a legal contract. throw an 'Happy Contract' or 'Happy Civil Union' party. but leave the non-civil officiating and mumbo jumbo to the agnostics and theists.

Well... even despite a lack of belief in a god, having a type of ceremony is often desired if for no other reason than for the individuals to make vows to each other in front of family and friends. For some people the whole "god" thing can easily be taken out of the equation and still have a marriage ceremony even if it is completely non-traditional. Also keep in mind that "marriage" is not a Christian exclusive event. Most cultures (even non so religious ones) have marriage ceremonies of some sort.

Con_Authority: Ha ha, your book is written in scriptio continua.


It's true, it is.

hahayourbookiswritt
eninscriptiocontin
uaifixedthatforyou

meat0918: My wife is now a Reverend of the Church of Universal Life. It was free. It's a farcical church imho, but the government is in no position to say what makes a church. They should probably be in no position to say what makes a minister either, but you need a recommendation from your congregation to become a marriage officiant in Oregon.

Cool! I'll look into that. Maybe I'll get ordained just for the fun of it. :D

that site is slow as shiaaat! I think i could master ancient hebrew before it loads.

meat0918: Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants?

That varies by state. In NYS, for example, you have to become a celebrant, but that can be achieved without being a minister of a church (and being a minister does not guarantee you celebrant status).

ExperianScaresCthulhu: why would athiests want to be an officiant? to 'marry' others?

Most states don't recognize a marriage unless a licensed officiant oversaw it and files the right paperwork. Yes, you could go to a JP, but then you don't get to throw a nice party and have a little ceremony like a regular wedding.

There's nothing religious about a graduation from public school, but people like a little pomp and circumstance anyway.

JohnnyC: Cool! I'll look into that. Maybe I'll get ordained just for the fun of it. :D

I got a ULC ordination in college. These days, very few states recognize an ordination itself, and require that you pass certain state requirements to perform things like marriages.

t3knomanser: I got a ULC ordination in college. These days, very few states recognize an ordination itself, and require that you pass certain state requirements to perform things like marriages.

Yeah... there's a couple of hoops I'd have to jump through here in Michigan (including a $20 fee). :)

t3knomanser: There's nothing religious about a graduation from public school, but people like a little pomp and circumstance anyway.

Exactly.

PC LOAD LETTER: nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

It's pretty literal in Greek: It is easier for a camel to come through the aperture of a needle than a rich person (male) to go into the kindgom of God.

Lets not forget the fact that this 'gates of heaven' people had to physically traverse through is complete bullshiat and no such area exists now or then.

meat0918: If I had less morals and ethics, I would start my own "non-denominational" ministry, and attempt to rake in the bucks.

//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

That's not true. I know atheists that a are member of the Universal life church who have married people.

And what do you mean "non-denominational"?

Are you aware there is such thing as "secular churches?"

Besides if you think atheists are all looking for a church to go to you really misunderstand what atheism about.

People who don't like football don't gather around on Sundays to talk about not watching football.

You kind of miss the whole point.

Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

esoteric.saudade: Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism?

Because atheism doesn't make indefensible claims about the world? Because, generally, when people demand evidence before they believe something, we consider it a positive trait, whereas believing something because you're supposed to is called "gullibility"? Because atheists weren't and aren't using their beliefs to justify slavery, racism, and all sorts of other forms of bigotry? Because atheists don't spam the airwaves with their, "For a small donation, your immortal soul can be saved!" scams? Because atheists don't run around telling people they're going to hell because they don't obey arcane rules in a specific way?

Seriously, what is there to ridicule in this stance: "There likely is no god, simply because there's no evidence to support that claim"? Not exactly a comedy gold mine. On the other hand, "We chop flesh off of people's dicks because god tells us to," is comedy gold. Mystical cannibalism is comedy gold.

I could go on. People bash religion because religion stands up, asking to get bashed. No one is entitled to their beliefs. Just because something is a deeply held belief does not protect it from ridicule. In fact, deeply held beliefs should be ridiculed. If your beliefs can't withstand ridicule, maybe they're not good things to believe in.

The reality is people mock religion because religion is ridiculous, and ridiculous things should be mocked.

t3knomanser: The reality is people mock religion because religion is ridiculous, and ridiculous things should be mocked.

Sums up religious threads on Fark.

Corvus: meat0918: If I had less morals and ethics, I would start my own "non-denominational" ministry, and attempt to rake in the bucks.

//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

That's not true. I know atheists that a are member of the Universal life church who have married people.

I should have qualified that with in Oregon. And my wife is now a member of that church so she can marry some friends of ours.

Corvus:And what do you mean "non-denominational"?

I mean one of the ways to bilk people out of money is by having a non-denominational Christian church. The kind that the "I'm spiritual, but not religious" Christians go too.

Corvus:Are you aware there is such thing as "secular churches?"

Besides if you think atheists are all looking for a church to go to you really misunderstand what atheism about.

People who don't like football don't gather around on Sundays to talk about not watching football.

You kind of miss the whole point.

I implied you had to be a religious minister according to the law (in Oregon). Secular is kind of the antithetical to religious.

And I don't have discussions about how awesome it is to not believe in god with my atheist friends. We talk about our kids, our favorite local beer, or how the economy is going.

I do get drawn into discussions with my family about why I am wrong, and why they think it is awesome to believe in god, and how I am scarring my children by not "educating" them about Jesus; despite the fact that we do educate them about what others believe in this world, we just don't add the "and you will burn for all eternity without mommy and daddy if you don't believe this" part.

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

Partly my fault, sorry.

However, pointing out that their are inconsistencies in the Bible is not religious bashing. Pointing out that many take it literally some of the time, and conveniently have a different interpretation when it suits them is not religion bashing.

//And we like our fundie strawmen around here TYVM.

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

I don't mock other religions, I mock people who use religion to push a political agenda and people who have no knowledge about their religion they say they follow.

People like "Christians" who seem to only follow the old testament.

And don't understand the "don't have gay sex" books also say things like you can't eat shell fish, or that you should stone women who marry who are not virgins.

See?