Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rochester Post Bulletin)   Man makes handwritten copy of the Bible. In the meantime, some upstart named Gutenberg also started making copies of it   (postbulletin.com ) divider line 157
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

5312 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2013 at 5:28 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 10:06:44 AM  

Great Janitor: Pointy Tail of Satan: You mean the distorted, inaccurate Bible in English, written for those too lazy to learn to read in Hebrew, Latin and Greek?

I think they mean the Bible post Council of Nicea where they decided what was going to be in the Bible as we know it today, and what was going be considered non-canon.  A friend of my explained to me when I was in my teens (older family friend, not another teenager) that prior to the Council of Nicea the Christian Church actually believed in reincarnation.  The Council of Nicea ditched it because if your followers thought that they had another life, then they could screw around in this life and use the next one for a chance to get into Heaven.  Tell them that you have only one life and now they are determined to get into Heaven on their one and only chance.  He was also one of the first people to explain to me the possibility that Mary Magdaline wasn't a whore but a rather important woman in the church around the time of Christ.  The Council of Nicea purposely reduced her to a whore to keep women subservient.  Something that would be a bit difficult if the Bible explained that Christ had a woman who was as equal as the men in his company.  The Council also pretty much deleted everything from the holy texts that they didn't like or agreed with or could pretty much threaten their political standing.


That is a simplification of what they did.   They went through the various writings of the 32+ varieties of Christians and battled over what was Orthodox and what wasn't.   They had 220-240 gospels and narrowed that down to 4.   They had the essays written by Paul and essays written by various Psuedo Pauls, all of the assorted stories about heaven and the end of the world.   after a lot of battling and voting, name calling, bribery and murder, one set of books was decided upon.   They separated and went on to the next set of battles, the elimination of Heterodoxsy and Heresy.
 
2013-05-13 10:13:16 AM  

Son of Thunder: Inflatable Rhetoric: Oldiron_79: untaken_name: Slappy McLongstockings: stop using a book to justify her actions that have led to the death of thousands

Wait, what book? This one?

THIS, Mao and Stalin have killed more people in the name of Atheism than the Holocaust, the crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, and the witch hunts combined.

Actually, there's no reason to think Stalin and Mao had any interest in gods or religion or atheism.

Aside from, ya know, the dead religious people.


Is there any evidence they singled out religious people, or took any interest in the beliefs of their victims?
 
2013-05-13 10:14:14 AM  

talkertopc: I am an Atheist and I am impressed by what the man did.
I am not impressed by the ignorance and bigotry of some of contributors to this thread.


We're all hurt.  Impressing you is very important to us.
 
2013-05-13 10:14:16 AM  

Ishkur: Stalin wasn't an atheist. Neither was Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, or any other 20th century dictator.


That's a new use of the No True Scotsman argument.
 
2013-05-13 10:41:31 AM  

robohobo: If he wanted to be a real Fark hero, he'd have handwritten a copy of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


Or, he could have learned calculus and trigonometry.  Or Visual Basic.

jk, I doubt he's educatable.
 
2013-05-13 10:41:56 AM  

Carn: douchebag/hater: Nice to see all the tolerant 'Progressives' here mocking the guy.

Would you have done it if he had hand-written the Koran?

Yeah I didn't think so.

I'd have had more praise for him if it were the Koran.  My impression is that a westerner writing Arabic script would have a much more difficult time than with English.


I heard the guy's interview on the radio (dnrtfa). Apparently, it is tradition to hand copy the Koran. He figured, why not try the same thing with the bible and see what I learn.

It's adorable that so many people have a problem with this. Absolutely adorable.
 
2013-05-13 10:47:18 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Actually, there's no reason to think Stalin and Mao had any interest in gods or religion or atheism.

Aside from, ya know, the dead religious people.

Is there any evidence they singled out religious people, or took any interest in the beliefs of their victims?


Yes, there is.
 
2013-05-13 10:50:06 AM  
"I'm really going to miss this writing."

So when did copying other peoples work become "writing"?
 
2013-05-13 10:52:05 AM  

Alphakronik: "I'm really going to miss this writing."

So when did copying other peoples work become "writing"?


The act of putting words to paper, even someone else's words, is commonly referred to as "writing." He may be merely duplicating content, rather than generating it, but he's still "writing" that content onto paper.
 
2013-05-13 10:52:09 AM  

Oldiron_79: THIS, Mao and Stalin have killed more people in the name of Atheism than the Holocaust, the crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, and the witch hunts combined.


I'm not sure in what context you could use the words "in the name of Atheism" but certainly not this one. You can't honestly believe that Mao and Stalin's goal was to spread Atheism.

To quote Sam Harris, because I can't say it better:
"This is a total misconstruel of what went on in those societies... The problem with fascism and communism was not that they were too critical of religion. The problem is they're too much like religions. These are utterly dogmatic systems of thought... North Korea is organized exactly like a faith-based cult. Is too little faith the problem with North Korea? Is too much skeptical inquiry what is wrong here?"

One of the many issues I have with the bible is that genocide is commanded by god:
From  1 Samuel 15:3
"This is what the Lord Almighty says... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Not only are people commanded to wage war, but they are not to spare the women or children? Seems horrific. But I guess god didn't really say that? That's just confusing, no? I have yet to hear a sufficient explanation of this.
 
2013-05-13 11:05:32 AM  
I'm not sure in what context you could use the words "in the name of Atheism" but certainly not this one. You can't honestly believe that Mao and Stalin's goal was to spread Atheism.

To quote Sam Harris, because I can't say it better:
"This is a total misconstruel of what went on in those societies... The problem with fascism and communism was not that they were too critical of religion. The problem is they're too much like religions. These are utterly dogmatic systems of thought... North Korea is organized exactly like a faith-based cult. Is too little faith the problem with North Korea? Is too much skeptical inquiry what is wrong here?"


What a gigantic load of crap. The only way this makes any sense at all is by leaping back and forth between definitions of "atheism" like a rabbit on crack.
 
2013-05-13 11:11:42 AM  

This text is now purple: Inflatable Rhetoric: Actually, there's no reason to think Stalin and Mao had any interest in gods or religion or atheism.

Aside from, ya know, the dead religious people.

Is there any evidence they singled out religious people, or took any interest in the beliefs of their victims?

Yes, there is.


What is it?
 
2013-05-13 11:12:24 AM  

Son of Thunder: What a gigantic load of crap. The only way this makes any sense at all is by leaping back and forth between definitions of "atheism" like a rabbit on crack.


The definition of atheism is actually pretty simple. It is the rejection of belief of the existence of deities. Even Christians reject the existence of thousands of gods, Atheists just go one more in this rejection. So I have no idea what "leaping" you are referring to. That definition is unchanging.
 
2013-05-13 11:15:52 AM  
I'll bet that even having copied the whole thing, he never actually read it.

I'm strongly in the camp that anyone who reads the bible is going to have a hard time believing in it.  At 8 I realized it was total crap, it was that obvious.

Well, I mean, those who are good at self-delusion, the willfully ignorant, and the just-plain-stupid will still make it through with their faith unscathed.
 
2013-05-13 11:20:52 AM  

quietwalker: I'll bet that even having copied the whole thing, he never actually read it.

I'm strongly in the camp that anyone who reads the bible is going to have a hard time believing in it.  At 8 I realized it was total crap, it was that obvious.

Well, I mean, those who are good at self-delusion, the willfully ignorant, and the just-plain-stupid will still make it through with their faith unscathed.


I don't know why people think god (the bible god) loves us.  I can understand being scared of such a horrible being and trying to pretend you love him in order to avoid his wrath, but there's no reason to think he loves us.

If he loved us, would he have created malaria, polio, and other horrible afflictions?  I doubt even Stalin would have been that cruel.
 
2013-05-13 11:24:49 AM  
\begin{Tatsuma}

EVERY SINGLE Torah scroll is a handwritten copy -- in calligraphy -- of the first five Books, in the original Hebrew, done by a scribe known as a sofer.

\end{Tatsuma}

Preserving all of the original inaccuracies, contradictions, interpolations, etc.
 
2013-05-13 11:27:19 AM  
I DNRTFA, however, just the headline alone made me want to muster up the most derisive golf clap possible.

/does he get extra point in heaven for doing this?
//who gives an actual fark?
 
2013-05-13 11:28:39 AM  

miss diminutive: He should have made it a choose-your-own-adventure book:

-> If you'd like Samson to smite the Philistines by tying 100 foxes together and setting them on fire, turn to page 117.

-> If you'd like Samson to go biblical on a pagan temple using the jawbone of an ass, turn to page 843.


Madam,
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!!!

Welcome to my favorites list!

/snort
 
2013-05-13 11:32:17 AM  
<p><b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7747273/84176128#c84176128">Strange Q</a>:</b> <i>INeedAName: Translation of your post: 'I see you made a point of some sort, let me respond with a tangential comment that in no way reflects what you were talking about.' </i></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><i>Okay how's this: I'm sure nobody in seminary school has a vested interest in promoting an unblemished version of the Bible.</i></p><p> </p><p>That's a very inaccurate position to hold. Most of the professors I have met base their entire classes on 'everything you ever learned was wrong.'</p><p> </p><p>Are their seminaries that just reinforce the inaccuracies and misinformation, almost certainly.</p><p> </p>
However, places like Duke, Drew, and Wesley (to name a few) seem rather hellbent (pun intended) to break down a lot of errant theology. It's pretty fantastic to watch students who grew up in the rural south preach about how their childhood faith was used to defend racism. You can actually watch them shed years of biased teachings as they begin to honestly examine things.

And there are more than a few students who withdraw because they cant handle the work the load or the challenge to their ingrown faith. And the occasional student who just stops believing in God.

Where we are, you will find students who have participated in gay rights marches, civil rights forums, and poverty programs to take homeless off the streets and put them into viable living situations.

Two of the students I have met this far actually began a program to patrol certain areas in the city where it was believed child prostitution was taking place so the could document what they saw and turn evidence over to the police.

I frankly dont care if people agree with my faith view point, but let's understand there are Christians out there actively challenging the status quo on church theology, while battling the injustice they see in the world around them.

The saddest thing is that for some people, the only Christian experience they've ever had has been filled with hate and intolerance. For that, I apologize.
 
2013-05-13 11:48:16 AM  
Whew!  For a minute there I thought the thumbnail pic was Reverend X...

i2.ytimg.com
 
2013-05-13 11:49:31 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: quietwalker: I'll bet that even having copied the whole thing, he never actually read it.

I'm strongly in the camp that anyone who reads the bible is going to have a hard time believing in it.  At 8 I realized it was total crap, it was that obvious.

Well, I mean, those who are good at self-delusion, the willfully ignorant, and the just-plain-stupid will still make it through with their faith unscathed.

I don't know why people think god (the bible god) loves us.  I can understand being scared of such a horrible being and trying to pretend you love him in order to avoid his wrath, but there's no reason to think he loves us.

If he loved us, would he have created malaria, polio, and other horrible afflictions?  I doubt even Stalin would have been that cruel.


The bible god is just an ever-evolving leader paradigm.

Starts out as a family head, only worried about strictly controlling what goes on in his limited purview.
Then he's the stereotyped tribal leader, knowing only violence and displays of strength, both to his enemies and his own people to keep them in line.
Then he's the perfect king, introducing laws and set punishments, wars are motivated by both ideological and economic issues. He gives the orders, but they're carried out by his armies.  He no longer meets with commoners.
Then he's a civic leader, refining rules and punishments which are described by his trusted cabinet who in turn explain it to the least of his servants. Enforcement is left to a society influenced by his ideology, never directly interacting, allowing his servants to do all the clerical work.
... and so on, incorporating concepts like mercy and individual merit, and etc, etc.

It seems obvious to me that the mien of the biblical god is just an idealized version of 'leader' for an advancing civilization, derived by the men at that time, based on their currently limited view of what it is to lead.  Looked at in this light, it's strongly indicative of the old adage, "God created Man, and Man returned the favor."
 
2013-05-13 11:50:54 AM  

INeedAName: And there are more than a few students who withdraw because they cant handle the work the load or the challenge to their ingrown faith. And the occasional student who just stops believing in God.

Where we are, you will find students who have participated in gay rights marches, civil rights forums, and poverty programs to take homeless off the streets and put them into viable living situations.

Two of the students I have met this far actually began a program to patrol certain areas in the city where it was believed child prostitution was taking place so the could document what they saw and turn evidence over to the police.

I frankly dont care if people agree with my faith view point, but let's understand there are Christians out there actively challenging the status quo on church theology, while battling the injustice they see in the world around them.

The saddest thing is that for some people, the only Christian experience they've ever had has been filled with hate and intolerance. For that, I apologize.


While I think it is great that there are Christians who fight for gay rights, they certainly did not derive this morality from the bible, which is completely intolerant of homosexuality. The supposedly divinely inspired text from the omniscient creator of the universe seems suspiciously limited to the understanding of the world at the time of its writing.

All of the things you mentioned, advocacy for gay and civil rights, attention to the problems of homelessness and poverty, are issues that can be addressed and helped without a belief in Yahweh. There are Atheists that do all of these things without simultaneously believing that there is some supernatural reward in store for them for doing it. One could argue that an Atheist doing a charitable act in the name of humanity is more noble than a Christian doing the same act under supervision by their creator.
 
2013-05-13 11:55:58 AM  

rabidarmadillo24: That's a hell of an accomplishment. I'm sure his children are proud.


Interior designer with AIDS.
Make your conclusion.
Mine = no kids.
 
2013-05-13 11:58:17 AM  

tylerdurden217: Son of Thunder: What a gigantic load of crap. The only way this makes any sense at all is by leaping back and forth between definitions of "atheism" like a rabbit on crack.

The definition of atheism is actually pretty simple. It is the rejection of belief of the existence of deities. Even Christians reject the existence of thousands of gods, Atheists just go one more in this rejection. So I have no idea what "leaping" you are referring to. That definition is unchanging.


If atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities, then that which is done so that belief in deities is reduced (like killing theists) is done in the name of atheism, and Harris' argument falls apart.

Defining atheism in entirely negative terms (mere absence of theism) provides atheists with a possible argument for denying that anything bad has ever happened in the name of atheism (can't be motivated by the absence of a thing) but it also removes any possible argument that atheism can do anything good. Atheism cannot produce superior epistemology, superior aesthetics, or superior morality, because it is not an active force in itself (This is what starts arguments when it is pointed out that New Age flakes who believe in telepathic UFOs, healing crystals, and reincarnation are just as "atheisty" as Harris, so long as their list of screwball ideas does not include any deities).

Harris' argument (and the often-heard claims that the aforementioned flakes are not "real" atheists) requires active beliefs, not the mere absence of beliefs. So we see a different definition of atheism, as the positive belief that reality is 100% composed of the "natural" world (0% supernatural), and an adherence to values such as skepticism, empiricism, ethical humanism, and political secularism. This is found in Harris' remark that totalitarian regimes are not atheist because they demonstrate insufficient skeptical inquiry, as well as many of the so-called New Atheists' writings. But these values cannot themselves be proven, which makes atheism a faith-based system of beliefs, and THAT is utterly unacceptable to the kind of atheist who would quote Harris. Further, these values themselves do not equal "atheism", as there are many theists who also hold them.

So pick a definition and deal with the consequences.
 
2013-05-13 12:10:41 PM  

Son of Thunder: If atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities, then that which is done so that belief in deities is reduced (like killing theists) is done in the name of atheism, and Harris' argument falls apart.

Defining atheism in entirely negative terms (mere absence of theism) provides atheists with a possible argument for denying that anything bad has ever happened in the name of atheism (can't be motivated by the absence of a thing) but it also removes any possible argument that atheism can do anything good. Atheism cannot produce superior epistemology, superior aesthetics, or superior morality, because it is not an active force in itself (This is what starts arguments when it is pointed out that New Age flakes who believe in telepathic UFOs, healing crystals, and reincarnation are just as "atheisty" as Harris, so long as their list of screwball ideas does not include any deities).

Harris' argument (and the often-heard claims that the aforementioned flakes are not "real" atheists) requires active beliefs, not the mere absence of beliefs. So we see a different definition of atheism, as the positive belief that reality is 100% composed of the "natural" world (0% supernatural), and an adherence to values such as skepticism, empiricism, ethical humanism, and political secularism. This is found in Harris' remark that totalitarian regimes are not atheist because they demonstrate insufficient skeptical inquiry, as well as many of the so-called New Atheists' writings. But these values cannot themselves be proven, which makes atheism a faith-based system of beliefs, and THAT is utterly unacceptable to the kind of atheist who would quote Harris. Further, these values themselves do not equal "atheism", as there are many theists who also hold them.

So pick a definition and deal with the consequences.


Which is exactly why many atheists do not like to be described as atheists. We don't have a term for people who don't believe in alchemy. I'm a nonalchemist. But nothing that I do is in the name of nonalchemy. I showed up to work ontime today and had a productive day, but not in the name of atheism or nonalchemy. I believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a naturalized citizen. I'm not a nonbirther. Nothing that I do is in the name of my nonbirtherism. I had eggs and oatmeal today for breakfast, but it as not in the name of my nonbirtherism, nonalchemy nor my atheism.

The belief in anything without sufficient evidence, be it the telepathic UFOs or healing crystals, is the antithesis of what people like Sam Harris and probably most atheists believe. Harris writes about the End of Faith, not the end of faith in god necessarily, but the end of the idea of faith which is a worthless virtue. Faith is the belief in something with insufficient evidence. It is the opposite of science and is in NO WAY atheism. It is YOU moving the definition of atheism, not me.

Atheism is a word that only exists because of rampant theism. I would be fine without the word, but it certainly saves time when someone asks me what I believe.
 
2013-05-13 12:14:29 PM  
Thish reminds meh of the time you got drunk and started wavin' that shotgun around the fire screamin' about how the UN was gonna prosecute the Catholic Church for Crimes Against Humanity for worldwide protection of pedophiles.  The Boy Scouts can only claim to have done that in America.
 
2013-05-13 12:20:59 PM  

INeedAName: Cucullen: INeedAName: Great Janitor: Pointy Tail of Satan: You mean the distorted, inaccurate Bible in English, written for those too lazy to learn to read in Hebrew, Latin and Greek?

I think they mean the Bible post Council of Nicea where they decided what was going to be in the Bible as we know it today, and what was going be considered non-canon.  A friend of my explained to me when I was in my teens (older family friend, not another teenager) that prior to the Council of Nicea the Christian Church actually believed in reincarnation.  The Council of Nicea ditched it because if your followers thought that they had another life, then they could screw around in this life and use the next one for a chance to get into Heaven.  Tell them that you have only one life and now they are determined to get into Heaven on their one and only chance.  He was also one of the first people to explain to me the possibility that Mary Magdaline wasn't a whore but a rather important woman in the church around the time of Christ.  The Council of Nicea purposely reduced her to a whore to keep women subservient.  Something that would be a bit difficult if the Bible explained that Christ had a woman who was as equal as the men in his company.   The Council also pretty much deleted everything from the holy texts that they didn't like or agreed with or could pretty much threaten their political standing.

While it's wonderful to have people in your life to educate you on things, did you bother to ever look any of this up? My wife just finished her first year of seminary and the amount of times during the week I find out that something someone once told me about the Bible turns out to blatantly false, is pretty interesting.

I dunno about all that stuff above, but you do realize that nicea a was about Constantine cementing his rule as emperor right? He used Christianity to build an army, nice a was about keeping that army together and not turning against him.
Interesting side note, some dude ...


i would think that what was being taught in a seminary would actually have to deal with the actual religion as it has been set by not only the council of Nicea but the ensuing Ecumenical Council which relate to Christianity.  What happens historically speaking and religiously are, in my opinion of course, quite different.

What I wonder is, and I do not actually know what the curriculum is at a seminary is, how well do the seminary teaching correspond with historical research and how does that change the relation of the actual religion which was being practiced then and being practiced now.  What is being uncovered about early Christianity in anthropological and historical studies may actually give us more insight into early Christianity than what the Church actually wants to teach.  Very interesting indeed.....
 
2013-05-13 12:43:26 PM  

Slappy McLongstockings: INeedAName: And as for the 'omg you're a Christian so you MUST ascribe to everything written in the bible' argument, it's trite and overplayed. If you want to have a genuine, adult discussion, let me know.

Can your wife tell me what parts of your book NOT to believe in?  It's a large book and I only have so much time to read it over again.


I would go with the part where it says to smite unbelievers.
 
2013-05-13 01:23:08 PM  
My hand would cramp up if I had to write the word "bullshiat" on hundreds of pages and pages.
 
2013-05-13 01:28:07 PM  
I can't think of a single reason why this isn't a completely stupid and pointless waste of time. Even if I was religious, I think I'd feel the same way.
 
2013-05-13 01:35:40 PM  

Kurmudgeon: That's a new use of the No True Scotsman argument.


That's because it's not. They were established systems of moral absolutes, with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. They were as religious as it gets, the only difference is they wanted people to worship the state rather than the church.
 
2013-05-13 01:47:23 PM  

Son of Thunder: If atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities, then that which is done so that belief in deities is reduced (like killing theists) is done in the name of atheism,


This is true, but it is also wrong at the same time.

What atheists actually abhor is not religion or theology, per se, but rather blind faith belief (where it be a god or some supernatural new age tripe).

Whenever you have a blind faith belief in something - it doesn't matter what that something is - you open the door for atrocities to occur. Anyone can be brought to the bidding of their superiors, or be compelled to commit any heinous or unspeakable act, for the sake of strict adherence to a format of social control.

There is a commonality of blind faith in all the extremisms of past ages, from fundamentalist theocracies to military dictatorships, from the totalitarian nation-states of the twentieth century to the Inquisitions of medieval Europe. The holder of a blind faith is static in a constantly changing Universe. It is not what they believe in that's so dangerous - the exact particulars of the belief are quite irrelevant - but to the extent that they will defend their beliefs. This is true of zealots from every facet of civilization, from politics to religion, law, war, culture, race and industry. It is also true for value systems that people show unwavering fealty toward, from holy books to Constitutions.

Everything comes down to a fundamental assumption of faith. But it's how faith is upheld that matters. If you believe in something absolutely from a position of blind faith then you will defend it absolutely from a position of blind faith. There is no room for interpretation: It is 100% true, absolute, and beyond question. You will seek out and destroy its opponents as they are threats to its wisdom and self-evident superiority. You are capable of dying for it and you are capable of killing for it. You are capable of being told to kill for it, and you accept conquest or annihilation as the only logical courses of action. There is no middle ground.

If we wish to live in an ethical world where atrocities do not occur, then we must reject blind faith and accept critical evaluation (but don't do this blindly, of course). The reason for this is quite simple: If you recognize the possibility that your basic assumptions might not be absolutely correct, then you will be much more tolerant of someone who disagrees with your assumptions. Moreover, you will not perceive their opposition as a threat to yours. You will disagree, but you will not die, and you will not kill for your convictions. The door to a better world lies down this path.

Son of Thunder: Atheism cannot produce superior epistemology, superior aesthetics, or superior morality, because it is not an active force in itself


This is also true. However, religion can hardly produce those things either (and historically it has not).
 
2013-05-13 01:54:24 PM  

Oldiron_79: Mao and Stalin have killed more people in the name of Atheism than the Holocaust, the crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, and the witch hunts combined.


If the Crusades had today's weapons, do you think that would still hold true?
 
2013-05-13 02:22:34 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: If the Crusades had today's weapons, do you think that would still hold true?


We don't need the Crusades to what-if our arguments. The Wars of the Reformation killed more people than both World Wars combined.

There's no hate like Catholic/Protestant hate.
 
2013-05-13 02:34:44 PM  

upload.wikimedia.org

 
2013-05-13 02:43:20 PM  

Ishkur: PC LOAD LETTER: If the Crusades had today's weapons, do you think that would still hold true?

We don't need the Crusades to what-if our arguments. The Wars of the Reformation killed more people than both World Wars combined.

There's no hate like Catholic/Protestant hate.


Hostilities fizzle out without a "my god can kick your god's assl" element.
 
2013-05-13 02:45:51 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Ishkur: PC LOAD LETTER: If the Crusades had today's weapons, do you think that would still hold true?

We don't need the Crusades to what-if our arguments. The Wars of the Reformation killed more people than both World Wars combined.

There's no hate like Catholic/Protestant hate.

Hostilities fizzle out without a "my god can kick your god's assl" element.


That statement just earned you an F in both History and Social Psychology.
 
2013-05-13 02:46:03 PM  

furterfan: so he chose the KJV, with all it's known translation errors
well whoop de doo

he should have made some stuff up and added it, to make it more interesting - like joseph smith junior did, about 200 years ago

/wonder if I'd get a news story about me, if I hand-copied out the 'Harry Potter' series?


I am too lazy to see if it's still online somewhere but there was a site that had a bunch of translations of the bible into different languages. The most awesome one was a translation (might have only been of the NT) into Pidgin English. Yes, that's an actual language.
 
2013-05-13 02:57:40 PM  

Tommy Moo: Interesting as performance art, I suppose. If they are going to write on it, why does the article contain a closeup of his face but not a single picture of his supposedly beautiful handwriting they keep waxing about?


Copyright.

Seriously; let's see an example of this guy's penmanship. Then we can determine exactly how much to mock him.
 
2013-05-13 03:11:35 PM  
media.tumblr.com

Finally, good to see Idris writing the script for Luther Season 3
 
2013-05-13 03:56:41 PM  
What a colossal waste of time, especially for one who is sick.  Instead of enjoying the last few years of his life, he is writing for 14 hours a day without even creating anything. I don't think just his body is sick.
 
2013-05-13 03:59:15 PM  

INeedAName: the amount of times during the week I find out that something someone once told me about the Bible turns out to blatantly false, is pretty interesting.


Due to the contradictions, those things could be simultaneously false and true.
 
2013-05-13 04:00:34 PM  

Dragonflew: What a colossal waste of time, especially for one who is sick.  Instead of enjoying the last few years of his life, he is writing for 14 hours a day without even creating anything. I don't think just his body is sick.


<stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg>
 
2013-05-13 04:06:10 PM  

Oldiron_79:  Mao and Stalin have killed more people in the name of Atheism than the Holocaust, the crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, and the witch hunts combined.


I agree, because someone else did something possibly more evil, this does make the Holocaust, the crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, and the witch hunts all just peachy and perfectly acceptable. Good point.
 
2013-05-13 04:58:47 PM  

Ishkur: That's because it's not. They were established systems of moral absolutes, with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. They were as religious as it gets, the only difference is they wanted people to worship the state rather than the church


To be a theocracy, there has to be a deity that is worshipped.
The state is not a deity.
Besides, people defend atheism religiously on fark, for example.
Original point still stands..
 
2013-05-13 05:05:51 PM  

miss diminutive: He should have made it a choose-your-own-adventure book:

-> If you'd like Samson to smite the Philistines by tying 100 foxes together and setting them on fire, turn to page 117.

-> If you'd like Samson to go biblical on a pagan temple using the jawbone of an ass, turn to page 843.


www.reactionface.info
 
2013-05-13 05:15:10 PM  

Kurmudgeon: To be a theocracy, there has to be a deity that is worshipped.


upload.wikimedia.org

"People can learn to love _______. Through songs and slogans, through endless advertisements and posters and banners, through rallies and parades and processions, through hymns and chants and recitations, through games and community hikes and camps, through lectures and workshops and seminars and film shows, from squads of volunteers and spontaneous demonstrations, through enforcement of doctrine in elementary schools, circulated testimonials, photographs. The people really have no choice but to love _______.

"_______ is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration. His function is to act as a focusing point for love, fear, and reverence, emotions which are more easily felt toward an individual than toward an organization.

"Anyone can be brought to the bidding of their leaders through devotion and worship of a charismatic yet enigmatic figure who cannot die and no one has ever seen. His penetrating visage is everywhere, full of power and mysterious calm, the leader and guardian of everything that is right with the world. We should all voice our gratitude to _______ for the new, happy life which his wise leadership has bestowed upon us.

"_______ loves you. So you must love _______."

/now, am I talking about Jesus Christ or Joseph Stalin?
//Neither. This paraphrase is from Orwell's 1984, but you are free to fill in the blanks with whatever deity you love most
 
2013-05-13 06:16:16 PM  

madgordy: Great Janitor: Pointy Tail of Satan: You mean the distorted, inaccurate Bible in English, written for those too lazy to learn to read in Hebrew, Latin and Greek?

I think they mean the Bible post Council of Nicea where they decided what was going to be in the Bible as we know it today, and what was going be considered non-canon.  A friend of my explained to me when I was in my teens (older family friend, not another teenager) that prior to the Council of Nicea the Christian Church actually believed in reincarnation.  The Council of Nicea ditched it because if your followers thought that they had another life, then they could screw around in this life and use the next one for a chance to get into Heaven.  Tell them that you have only one life and now they are determined to get into Heaven on their one and only chance.  He was also one of the first people to explain to me the possibility that Mary Magdaline wasn't a whore but a rather important woman in the church around the time of Christ.  The Council of Nicea purposely reduced her to a whore to keep women subservient.  Something that would be a bit difficult if the Bible explained that Christ had a woman who was as equal as the men in his company.  The Council also pretty much deleted everything from the holy texts that they didn't like or agreed with or could pretty much threaten their political standing.

That is a simplification of what they did.   They went through the various writings of the 32+ varieties of Christians and battled over what was Orthodox and what wasn't.   They had 220-240 gospels and narrowed that down to 4.   They had the essays written by Paul and essays written by various Psuedo Pauls, all of the assorted stories about heaven and the end of the world.   after a lot of battling and voting, name calling, bribery and murder, one set of books was decided upon.   They separated and went on to the next set of battles, the elimination of Heterodoxsy and Heresy.


In scientific circles, this is called "peer review".
 
2013-05-13 06:22:26 PM  
jacketupload.macmillanusa.com

He's way ahead of you.

/Never forget, he got to make out with Kim Cattrall in her prime.
 
2013-05-13 07:17:01 PM  

quietwalker: I'll bet that even having copied the whole thing, he never actually read it.

I'm strongly in the camp that anyone who reads the bible is going to have a hard time believing in it.  At 8 I realized it was total crap, it was that obvious.

Well, I mean, those who are good at self-delusion, the willfully ignorant, and the just-plain-stupid will still make it through with their faith unscathed.


Which is why I'm an advocate of the King James Version. I don't care that the other versions are supposedly closer to the originals, or more theologically accurate. Most of them ruin the poetry of one of the greatest english language works of literature ever. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death..." becomes something bland like, "Even though I walk through the valley of darkness...". Who the hell wants to read that? Everybody should read the Bible, just so they get the cultural references. It's referenced extensively by just about every western author, artist, poet, and whatever else who has written in the past 2,000 years, and the King James Version is filled with some of the most lyrical prose you will ever read. But read it as literature.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report