The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Nomic » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:13 pm UTC

These are the same people who tend to justify their hatered for certain concepts or groups of people because of what it says in the Bible. So how can they go and try to change what the Bible says? Their intire argument of the Bible being immutable word of God falls apart if it turns out you can just edit it to say what you like. The Bible is not a wiki! And what the hell is up with this weird anti-science thing these people seem to have? I thought the science-hating conservative was just a strawman. I undestand they might not like the concept of evolution, but seems these guys really believe than being an intelligent person means you're a liberal, and that means you're in league with the communists and possibly Satan. Come to think of it, doesn't that mean they're saying their own side is composed of idiots.

Sorry for the rambling, people like this just drive me mad. How can it be that I, a card-carrying villain, an atheist and a person who'se never fully read the Bible (I've read parts of it and looked up all sort of stuff to find out what all the religious people are going on about) comes off as a better christian? Atleast I know that you can't just alter the world of God to suit your political viewpoint. I'm not going to blame this on religion, tho. Most religious people find these guys just as carzy as I do. I'm blaming the two party system for fostering needless amounts of polarisation and "us vs them" mentality that leads to this kind of thinking.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:18 pm UTC

Nomic wrote:go and try to change what the Bible says? Their intire argument of the Bible being immutable word of God falls apart if it turns out you can just edit it to say what you like. The Bible is not a wiki! And what the hell is up with this weird anti-science thing these people seem to have? I thought the science-hating conservative was just a strawman. I undestand they might not like the concept of evolution, but seems these guys really believe than being an intelligent person means you're a liberal, and that means you're in league with the communists and possibly Satan. Come to think of it, doesn't that mean they're saying their own side is composed of idiots.

Sorry for the rambling, people like this just drive me mad. How can it be that I, a card-carrying villain, an atheist and a person who'se never fully read the Bible (I've read parts of it and looked up all sort of stuff to find out what all the religious people are going on about) comes off as a better christian? Atleast I know that you can't just alter the world of God to suit your political viewpoint. I'm not going to blame this on religion, tho. Most religious people find these guys just as carzy as I do. I'm blaming the two party system for fostering needless amounts of polarisation and "us vs them" mentality that leads to this kind of thinking.
Andy Schlafly is the Andy Kaufman of the internet.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:23 am UTC

Nomic wrote:Their intire argument of the Bible being immutable word of God falls apart if it turns out you can just edit it to say what you like.

Well, you don't even have to edit the Bible for the argument to fall apart. The Bible is internally contradictory. Sure, it's likely a translation error on the part of some ancient scribe, but there's situations where it's either got to be 5,000 or 50,000 stables, not both.

User avatar
AJR
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:53 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby AJR » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:05 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
Nomic wrote:Their intire argument of the Bible being immutable word of God falls apart if it turns out you can just edit it to say what you like.

Well, you don't even have to edit the Bible for the argument to fall apart. The Bible is internally contradictory. Sure, it's likely a translation error on the part of some ancient scribe, but there's situations where it's either got to be 5,000 or 50,000 stables, not both.

Or my favourite: the two different creation stories in Genesis. I'm sure that FundieLogicTM has a way of dealing with this, but by a simple reading chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are contradictory.

DISCLAIMER: FundieLogicTM should not be confused with rational logical reasoning. Any resemblance of any conclusion to those reached by rational processes is unintended and entirely coincidental. This poster accepts no liability, either express or implied, for any direct or consequential losses incurred as a result of applying FundieLogicTM in any situation. Or for any damage to any person's eyesight as a result of attempting to read this mini-text.
#include <disclaimer.h>

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Bright Shadows » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:11 am UTC

AJR wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:
Nomic wrote:Their intire argument of the Bible being immutable word of God falls apart if it turns out you can just edit it to say what you like.

Well, you don't even have to edit the Bible for the argument to fall apart. The Bible is internally contradictory. Sure, it's likely a translation error on the part of some ancient scribe, but there's situations where it's either got to be 5,000 or 50,000 stables, not both.

Or my favourite: the two different creation stories in Genesis. I'm sure that FundieLogicTM has a way of dealing with this, but by a simple reading chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are contradictory.

DISCLAIMER: FundieLogicTM should not be confused with rational logical reasoning. Any resemblance of any conclusion to those reached by rational processes is unintended and entirely coincidental. This poster accepts no liability, either express or implied, for any direct or consequential losses incurred as a result of applying FundieLogicTM in any situation. Or for any damage to any person's eyesight as a result of attempting to read this mini-text.
#include <disclaimer.h>

...
? What, now? I've read those chapters before. Maybe I missed something, but I only saw one story..? Would you care to elaborate?
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Vaniver » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Looking into it a bit more, they may actually have a point about those specific lines that they're cutting out. I think I trust the Biblical scholars more than them at the moment (as one scholar saying "look, it might be this way" is probably enough to settle the issue for them, and I bet they looked for reasons why it might not be in the Bible because they didn't like it, rather than the other way around), but I don't really care enough about Biblical textual analysis to research the issue.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby The Reaper » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:51 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:? What, now? I've read those chapters before. Maybe I missed something, but I only saw one story..? Would you care to elaborate?
The genesis thing, if you read most bibles, you have the adam and eve version, and then you have another one immediately afterwards, which makes slightly more sense than the adam and eve one.

/memory. (sorry if its off by a tiny bit, but thats the general gist. I has not looked at that book in years.)

User avatar
Pansori
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:33 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Pansori » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:59 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
AJR wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:
Nomic wrote:Their intire argument of the Bible being immutable word of God falls apart if it turns out you can just edit it to say what you like.

Well, you don't even have to edit the Bible for the argument to fall apart. The Bible is internally contradictory. Sure, it's likely a translation error on the part of some ancient scribe, but there's situations where it's either got to be 5,000 or 50,000 stables, not both.

Or my favourite: the two different creation stories in Genesis. I'm sure that FundieLogicTM has a way of dealing with this, but by a simple reading chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are contradictory.

DISCLAIMER: FundieLogicTM should not be confused with rational logical reasoning. Any resemblance of any conclusion to those reached by rational processes is unintended and entirely coincidental. This poster accepts no liability, either express or implied, for any direct or consequential losses incurred as a result of applying FundieLogicTM in any situation. Or for any damage to any person's eyesight as a result of attempting to read this mini-text.
#include <disclaimer.h>

...
? What, now? I've read those chapters before. Maybe I missed something, but I only saw one story..? Would you care to elaborate?


There are two creation stories, one starts with the let there be light and ends with God created man and woman in his image, in his image they were created, etc. etc... and the next story is the infamous Adam, Eve, fruit story. Some conservative scholars argue that it is not a second creation story, but a continuation of the first, and they do make good points for this reasoning.

On a side note I notice that whenever issues come up about the fallacy of the Bible people tend to come down pretty hard on it and discount the book in its entirety. It's almost like that they tend to forget (or do not know) that even though it is a religious text it is also considered a historical text by scholars and historians. The theology is mixed in with the history because the Jewish people in ancient days was a theocratic society. The Bible does have a lot of "fairy tales", but it speaks a lot of truth about historical events as well (i.e. Babylonian exile, destruction of the Temple, Israel's monarchy, the spread of Christianity, Roman rule over Jews, etc).

User avatar
AJR
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:53 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby AJR » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:02 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:...
? What, now? I've read those chapters before. Maybe I missed something, but I only saw one story..? Would you care to elaborate?

The story in Genesis 1:1-2:4:
Day 1: God creates day & night
Day 2: God creates the sky
Day 3: God separates the land and the sea, and makes plants on the land
Day 4: God puts the "lights in the sky" - the sun, moon (& stars)
Day 5: God creates fish and birds
Day 6: God creates the land animals, and then creates man (male & female) in his own image
Day 7: God rested.

Compare with Genesis 2:4-25:
No "days" narrative, but in order:
God creates the heavens and the Earth.
God waters the Earth (streams or rains, depending on translation.)
God makes "the man" (Adam) from the dust, and breathes life into him.
God had made the Garden of Eden (at some, unspecified point) and puts Adam into Eden. God makes trees grow in Eden.
Four rivers are then mentioned.
God has put Adam into the Garden of Eden, to look after it. God tells Adam that he can eat from any of the trees except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
God decides that it's not good for Adam to be alone, and so will make a helper for him.
God makes the birds and animals, and brings them to Adam to name them. But none are a suitable helper, so...
God sends Adam to sleep, and then takes one of his ribs and uses it to make a woman.

There are differences in these stories: Was man created before or after the animals? Does the creation of "man" encompass both male & female, or was a male person created first and then a woman made from his rib later on? When God creates man, is he creating a group of people (as implied by the "male and female he created them" in 1:27) or is he creating a specific individual ("the man" - Adam - in the Garden of Eden version)?

Edit: I see I've been ninja'd at bit with this. Oh well...

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Kyrn » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:07 am UTC

Of cause, the order of creation is also greatly affected by whether God works in a chronologically linear fashion.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dibley » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:23 am UTC

There are two creation narratives. The first one, which is associated with the author P, goes from Genesis 1:1 to half way through 2:4. In the P account, It starts with the earth being "tohu v'bohu", usually translated as "formless and void", and the "breath/wind of Elohim" blows across the oceans. On the first day Elohim speaks light into existence, separates the light from the dark, calls them "Day" and "Night", and says that it's good. On the second day Elohim places a "r'qiyah", a dome, usually translated "firmament" or "expanse" in the ocean, separating the waters above from the waters below, and he calls it "Sky". This reflects ancient Jewish cosmology. They believed that the sky was a solid dome over everything, and that there were gates in the dome which God would open, and the water above would pour out, causing it to rain. On the third day Elohim commanded that there should be a separation of the water and the soil beneath the dome, and one would be called "Earth" and the other would be called "Seas", and that there should be plants on the earth. On the fourth day, Elohim said that there should be lights in the sky to separate day from night, so people would be able to establish a calendar, and some more lights as stars, just because your such a good customer. Note that the sun comes after light and plants. On the fifth day, Elohim created creatures of the sea and birds. On the sixth day, Elohim created all of the land animals, and then set to work on humans. He said that they should be "in our own image". From the grammar (Hebrew is a strictly gendered language) it's clear that he creates an unspecified but plural number of humans, and that there are both men and women in this group, and that when he said "in our own image" he was referring to the group collectively, rather than a single "Adam". Elohim tells the humans that they're in charge and they should "be fruitful and multiply", and he declares it "very good". On the seventh day he rested and established the sabbath.

The second narrative, identified with the author J, begins halfway through Genesis 2:4 and continues on through the whole Garden of Eden thing. The garden of Eden is part of the J narrative, and P doesn't really talk about it, unless I'm forgetting something. J starts off with a much different tone and structure, and says that when YHWH (J always says YHWH, and in fact J stands for Jahwist, the German spelling, P always says Elohim) began creating, before there were plants, because YHWH had not yet sent rains or made humans to till the soil, there was a "flow" that would well up from the ground and cover the earth. YHWH then formed man from mud, blew into his nostrils, and made him alive. This man is called "Ha'Adam", literally "the man", which is a pun on the homophonic word for soil. Adam is not a name, it's a title. He's "the man" because he's the only one at the present. Note that in this account he creates a single man, rather than a mixed group, and he creates him before the plants. Then YHWH creates a garden called Eden in the east, puts the man there, and you know what happens next. Interesting things you don't usually hear about the eden story: the snake is not associated with Satan, as the concept of Satan hadn't been invented yet. The only description the snake gets is that he was very clever, or "arum", a pun on the homophonic word for naked, which is used to describe the humans after they eat from the tree of knowledge (Ancient Jews in general and J in particular loved puns). Also, the "knowledge of good and evil" that the tree bestows is a Hebrew idiom for "everything", kinda like "a to z", and doesn't really have any moral subtext. Also, God says that the day they eat of the fruit they'll die. The snake says that if they eat it they would not die, their eyes would be opened and they would be like gods. When they end up eating the fruit, they don't die, they're eyes are opened, they gain knowledge of "good and evil", and YHWH says "Now that they are divine like us, we should kick them out before they eat from the tree of life and become immortal", and he kicks them out. God lied, the snake told the truth.

Oh hey, ninja'd, but damned if I wrote this for nothing.

With regard to the two accounts being separate, read up on the Documentary Hypothesis.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Indon » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:26 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:Looking into it a bit more, they may actually have a point about those specific lines that they're cutting out. I think I trust the Biblical scholars more than them at the moment (as one scholar saying "look, it might be this way" is probably enough to settle the issue for them, and I bet they looked for reasons why it might not be in the Bible because they didn't like it, rather than the other way around), but I don't really care enough about Biblical textual analysis to research the issue.


That's entirely possible.

In fact, due to spending my early days on the interwebs arguing against creationists, I happen to know some of those contentious passages!

The first thing I checked was the mention of the Great Commission in the last chapter of Mark, and, amazingly enough, it's actually been removed! The Great Commission is actually evangelist bread and butter, so its' removal is not only indicative of some degree of textual awareness of the book, but I daresay the lack of utter and total bias by at least one editor.

So they pass Bible 101. Then I tried 102: looking at the story of Lot in Genesis. They aren't actually pushing the sexual sin angle like I would have expected them to, instead keeping the flow of the story largely the same. They do get a bit wonky with the rape of Lot by his two daughters, though: They clearly plot to get him drunk and rape him, but the term used is 'be intimate with', which is even less sexually explicit than the classical 'know'. Not an error, though, just strange use of wording.

Okay, not bad. Feeling more confidence, I went for a big one: The Sermon on the Mount.

Here we can see some conflicts between the translators. Matthew 5:3, KJV "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." has two translations.

The first is "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven," a mere capitalization.
The second, however, is "So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs," and you can tell that this is where they're trying to lay the conservatism on thick.

In 5:22, you see a rather major error by omission.

KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The conservatives translate it, "But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell."

The omission is subtle, so I bolded the original. The translation basically removes any point to the line: Jesus is saying that being angry with cause might get you judgment of your peers, but being angry without good reason is worthy of damnation. Without that, the line doesn't make much sense: So Jesus thinks "Airhead" is okay, but "Moron" gets you damned? They have a citation for removing the line, but it's very much failing to see the forest for the trees. All they've done is made the line stop making sense.

Meanwhile, in 5:44, the citation notes that they could omit part of the verse but choose not to because it's 'consistent'.

Other than that, it's surprisingly unedited.

An amusing note, though: Matthew 19:23, JKV "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Conservative version: "Then Jesus told His students, "I tell you truly, that a rich man will enter the Kingdom of heaven only with difficulty. "

But yeah, the translation actually isn't blatantly incompetent.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Kyrn » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:40 am UTC

Dibley wrote:The second narrative, identified with the author J, begins halfway through Genesis 2:4 and continues on through the whole Garden of Eden thing. The garden of Eden is part of the J narrative, and P doesn't really talk about it, unless I'm forgetting something. J starts off with a much different tone and structure, and says that when YHWH (J always says YHWH, and in fact J stands for Jahwist, the German spelling, P always says Elohim) began creating, before there were plants, because YHWH had not yet sent rains or made humans to till the soil, there was a "flow" that would well up from the ground and cover the earth. YHWH then formed man from mud, blew into his nostrils, and made him alive. This man is called "Ha'Adam", literally "the man", which is a pun on the homophonic word for soil. Adam is not a name, it's a title. He's "the man" because he's the only one at the present. Note that in this account he creates a single man, rather than a mixed group, and he creates him before the plants. Then YHWH creates a garden called Eden in the east, puts the man there, and you know what happens next. Interesting things you don't usually hear about the eden story: the snake is not associated with Satan, as the concept of Satan hadn't been invented yet. The only description the snake gets is that he was very clever, or "arum", a pun on the homophonic word for naked, which is used to describe the humans after they eat from the tree of knowledge (Ancient Jews in general and J in particular loved puns). Also, the "knowledge of good and evil" that the tree bestows is a Hebrew idiom for "everything", kinda like "a to z", and doesn't really have any moral subtext. Also, God says that the day they eat of the fruit they'll die. The snake says that if they eat it they would not die, their eyes would be opened and they would be like gods. When they end up eating the fruit, they don't die, they're eyes are opened, they gain knowledge of "good and evil", and YHWH says "Now that they are divine like us, we should kick them out before they eat from the tree of life and become immortal", and he kicks them out. God lied, the snake told the truth.

Oh hey, ninja'd, but damned if I wrote this for nothing.

With regard to the two accounts being separate, read up on the Documentary Hypothesis.


Two points:
1) Death may be metaphorical, in that their innocence (hence their conceptual being) died. Alternatively it could have been a threat which God later relented.
2) Though the snake may not be Satan, one would question how the snake got said knowledge.

Or basically, I find your claim that "God lied, the snake told the truth." to be potentially misleading.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dibley » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:45 am UTC

When one person says something will happen, and another says something else will happen, and nothing the first one said would happen happens and everything the second one said would happen happens, the first person is either lying or mistaken, and if you're going to try to claim that god is omniscient, that removes one possibility. The only way to get around god lying is to really blatantly twist the text, or alternately just ignore it. Both strategies are popular.

How did the snake know? I dunno, it says he was clever. Maybe he tried some, and that's why he's clever? It's a myth, it's that way because that's how the story goes.

User avatar
LongLiveTheDutch
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:17 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby LongLiveTheDutch » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:51 am UTC

Dibley wrote:God lied, the snake told the truth.


To be sure, their eating of the forbidden fruit led to spiritual death for themselves and the whole human race, which is the reason for sacrifice in the OT and the reason Jesus came to earth, to atone for that original sin. You can find that in Romans 5, particularily verse 12 to the end.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Kyrn » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:55 am UTC

Dibley wrote:When one person says something will happen, and another says something else will happen, and nothing the first one said would happen happens and everything the second one said would happen happens, the first person is either lying or mistaken, and if you're going to try to claim that god is omniscient, that removes one possibility. The only way to get around god lying is to really blatantly twist the text, or alternately just ignore it. Both strategies are popular.

How did the snake know? I dunno, it says he was clever. Maybe he tried some, and that's why he's clever? It's a myth, it's that way because that's how the story goes.


1) If death meant death of innocence, that did happen, so essentially the snake lied or misled Adam/Eve.
2) If death was a threat, the snake was taking a gamble that God wouldn't kill them. Even if the gamble worked, it still remains that chance was involved, and that God could have killed them.
3) I don't believe God is omniscient regardless, because the alternative would either be that God is a rather malevolent being, or God is inconsequential. (either God caused his(her?its?) knowledge of events, or God could not have changed or done anything otherwise to improve the situation.)
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dibley » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:04 am UTC

1) That's a perfectly valid interpretation, if you buy into Original Sin and consider that to be the origin of it, but that does not seem to be the way the ancient Jews thought of it. Whenever they mentioned something like an Original Sin (it was not standard doctrine), they usually placed it as being Cain killing Abel.
2) Seems a little weak, but I suppose it kinda works.
3) Then you disagree with most Christians. I don't think that an omniscient god is a coherent idea. For instance, YHWH of the J account has to go down and look around and say "Where are you?", implying that he didn't already know. The J and E accounts are full of similar scenes, I don't recall what D had to say about it, and the P one tends to be kinda omniscientish.

Anyways, I'll ask my professor, but he'll probably say the same thing he did every other time I asked "why" about a myth: "That's how the story goes, if you really want to know, go find whoever came up with it in the first place and ask them."

User avatar
Pansori
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:33 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Pansori » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:09 am UTC

Dibley wrote:
Anyways, I'll ask my professor, but he'll probably say the same thing he did every other time I asked "why" about a myth: "That's how the story goes, if you really want to know, go find whoever came up with it in the first place and ask them."


Your professor actually says that? What a terrible reply. "Why" has been a questioned asked numerous times in my religion classes and the majority of the time (depending on the story) the origins usually have something to do with combating the stories of their neighbors gods.

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dibley » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:36 am UTC

So you'd rather he answer it by making shit up? How do your professors know why each individual element is there? Do they have any evidence? If there were some evidence for why some bit of a story is there he wouldn't hesitate to give it, but in most cases, especially when you're dealing with something this old, there simply isn't any.

Perhaps I should revise my original statement. That's what he says when the answer isn't known or knowable.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby The Reaper » Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:35 am UTC

So, it appears my memory is backwards. -shrug- But yea. Isn't the snake a pretty smart little guy in some other religions? (various african ones?)

I still fail to see why knowledge is treated as inherently evil :\

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Kyrn » Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:47 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:So, it appears my memory is backwards. -shrug- But yea. Isn't the snake a pretty smart little guy in some other religions? (various african ones?)

I still fail to see why knowledge is treated as inherently evil :\


Snakes in mythology

Anyway, it's not just knowledge, but knowledge of Good and Evil. Essentially instead of everyone being equals, there's suddenly a dichotomy of morals. Or in D&D terms, a strict Neutral-Neutral would say that both Good and Evil (and Chaos and Law) are essentially flawed.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Pansori
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:33 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Pansori » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:03 am UTC

Dibley wrote:So you'd rather he answer it by making shit up? How do your professors know why each individual element is there? Do they have any evidence? If there were some evidence for why some bit of a story is there he wouldn't hesitate to give it, but in most cases, especially when you're dealing with something this old, there simply isn't any.

Perhaps I should revise my original statement. That's what he says when the answer isn't known or knowable.


I wouldn't say my professors know why each element is there, but I would guess they would have a good theory and evidence to back it up, be it outside sources from other texts or archaeological.I am assuming your professor is a scholar, and especially if he is teaching anything on religion it is surprising that he would answer in that regard. Religious scholars are in the business to try to answer those why questions, not pass it off with an "I dunno, go ask some dead guy who has no possible way of answering."

There's a lot of things people don't know when it comes to verses in the Bible, but I would wager that there is a theory out there for almost every single verse in the book. This semester I took a class on the Book of Ezekiel. My teacher had numerous articles on what seemed (for most of us) to be the most insignificant verses. Some articles were dedicated to little more then phrases that are mentioned in the book.

I just think your professor gave you a cop out answer. No offense.

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dibley » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:05 am UTC

As I said earlier, many scholars believe that the "good and evil" bit of it is just an idiom.

EDIT: oh hai ninja. With regards to, say, Ezekiel, that's to be expected. It's prophecy. Each weird nonsensical phrase is an arcane metaphor for something, usually political. Anyways, I'd rather not get into a my professor vs. your professor holy war, it'd make me feel awfully silly.

User avatar
Pansori
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:33 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Pansori » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:22 am UTC

Dibley wrote:As I said earlier, many scholars believe that the "good and evil" bit of it is just an idiom.

EDIT: oh hai ninja. With regards to, say, Ezekiel, that's to be expected. It's prophecy. Each weird nonsensical phrase is an arcane metaphor for something, usually political. Anyways, I'd rather not get into a my professor vs. your professor holy war, it'd make me feel awfully silly.


Touché. I don't want to either, I'm sure your teacher is just dandy, like I said I was just surprised he responded in that way. Anyway, if you ask him about the Genesis accounts, Original sin, and such I'm curious as to what he'll say. I took a class on Genesis this last summer, but we probably spent the least amount of time on the opening passages. I skimmed over my Genesis commentary book to see what the author had to say about the two creation accounts. Unfortunately, he is a conservative, and his writing is too Jesus biased to post anything noteworthy. :(

User avatar
Habz
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:55 am UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Habz » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:56 am UTC

Dibley wrote:"The second narrative, identified with the author J, begins halfway through Genesis 2:4..."

"...This man is called "Ha'Adam", literally "the man", which is a pun on the homophonic word for soil. Adam is not a name, it's a title. He's "the man" because he's the only one at the present.

Anyone else thought of Prince Adam/He-Man reading this...?

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby EmptySet » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:18 pm UTC

Pansori wrote:On a side note I notice that whenever issues come up about the fallacy of the Bible people tend to come down pretty hard on it and discount the book in its entirety. It's almost like that they tend to forget (or do not know) that even though it is a religious text it is also considered a historical text by scholars and historians. The theology is mixed in with the history because the Jewish people in ancient days was a theocratic society. The Bible does have a lot of "fairy tales", but it speaks a lot of truth about historical events as well (i.e. Babylonian exile, destruction of the Temple, Israel's monarchy, the spread of Christianity, Roman rule over Jews, etc).


That's probably because these things often come up in discussions involving Bible literalism or similar claims; if someone claims that the Bible is literal truth, absolute and immutable, the fact that it contradicts itself in places is a major problem for their world view. When people say that the Bible is inaccurate they're not (typically) claiming that every line in it is completely false, but rather that it is unreliable and therefore "The Bible says so!" isn't a very good argument, especially when it comes to less historical claims, like wearing two kinds of cloth being unclean, or some random peasant having a dream in which an angel appeared.

Anyway, on an unrelated note, earlier today I started wondering if they're going to make a book of "conservative" hymns as well. Amazing spiritual and majestic gift-giving / how sweet the sound / that saved a liberal like me?

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Alexius » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:33 pm UTC

Dibley wrote: From the grammar (Hebrew is a strictly gendered language) it's clear that he creates an unspecified but plural number of humans, and that there are both men and women in this group

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Hebrew, like European gendered languages (eg French and Latin) uses the masculine plural for mixed-gender groups.
On the other hand,
Genesis 1:27 wrote:And God created man in His own image,in the image of God He created him, male and female he created them

The first instance of "man" in this verse is אֶת-הָאָדָם (et-ha-adam) which IIRC is singular and accusative ("and God created the man")

Apologies for any errors, my Hebrew is extremely rusty.

User avatar
Goldstein
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: Newcastle, UK

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Goldstein » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:56 pm UTC

EmptySet wrote:Anyway, on an unrelated note, earlier today I started wondering if they're going to make a book of "conservative" hymns as well. Amazing spiritual and majestic gift-giving / how sweet the sound / that saved a liberal like me?

A return to "The rich man earns his castle / The poor deserve the gate", then?
Chuff wrote:I write most of my letters from the bottom

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:31 pm UTC

I've just read the conservapedia article on atheism.

Words fail me.

I think I've just found a new site to browse when I'm bored. :lol:
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Aikanaro » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:15 pm UTC

Care to give an example? I'd go there, but I'm afraid I might vomit on my keyboard.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Xeio » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

Well, a few of the subsections are "Atheism and Communism" and "Atheism and Mass Murder". Oh and apparently, "Atheism and mental and physical health" has its own article.

Oh, and even more:
The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.
I feel like I should be having more fun because I'm an atheist now. :roll:

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Aikanaro » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:56 pm UTC

You should edit that article to include that they also have poor attendance at church :roll:
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:57 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:Care to give an example? I'd go there, but I'm afraid I might vomit on my keyboard.


Click for a good laugh:

Spoiler:
Conservapedia wrote: Reasonable Explanations for Atheism

See main article: Causes of Atheism

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
Matthew Henry

* Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism.[121][122][123][124] In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward. The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."[125]

* Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence[126]

* Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.[127]

* Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts[128]

* State churches: Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death.[129]

* Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.[130] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[127][131] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[127] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.[127]

* Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism."[132]

* Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."[132] Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation."[133] Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages." [134] Atheists and secularists rarely point out that universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others were founded by Christians.[135][136]

* Negative experiences with theists

* Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God.[137]
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3997
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dauric » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:04 pm UTC

Well at the very least that article on atheism would (theoretically) lean away from theocracy, since "State Churches" is given as a reason for the existence of atheists. Of course the entire remainder of the project is fundamentally based on political theocracy.....
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Aikanaro » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

Part of me died when I read that, I think....

Dear God, I'm afraid to think of what they say about OTHER religions (other than Islam, which it's a GIVEN they're going to tear apart). Buddhism for example, which doesn't exactly have a history of violence attached to it...

EDIT: I'm not a conspiracy theorist who believes in any real movement to "convert" people to atheism, but damn, if there WAS, they should just hand out that bit on flyers. Every fiber of my being is leaning towards it just out of rebellion/reaction to the idiocy inherent in it.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Goldstein
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: Newcastle, UK

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Goldstein » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:17 pm UTC

I thought it started off fairly reasonable -- at least, relative to my expectations -- but far surpassed my expectations as it went on. There's a section titled "Anti-Atheist Blogs". Granted, it's relevant to the 'discussion' but surely Atheist Blogs are at least as relevant.

Another section is titled "Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates". Debates? What does 'win' even mean? Did they provide better evidence for their position? Has Nature been informed of these developments? Predictably, they go on to talk about Dawkins and promise some video of him 'losing' a debate but the referenced site no longer has the video. Pity, I wanted to see what they were on about.

Anyhow, I think it's been suggested that this Schlafly bloke's going to be on The Colbert Report later today. Can anyone suggest when and where I can watch this from the old world?
Chuff wrote:I write most of my letters from the bottom

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Goldstein wrote:Another section is titled "Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates".
That's a perennial favorite of mine, and really highlights what this is about--"We're winning all the debates!"--oh, right, because it's debates that determine the validity of your claims, not science, experimentation, or rational thought.

User avatar
Goldstein
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: Newcastle, UK

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Goldstein » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:24 pm UTC

Talk about biased. There's not even any mention of how my dad could beat up his dad.
Chuff wrote:I write most of my letters from the bottom

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3997
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Dauric » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:33 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Goldstein wrote:Another section is titled "Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates".
That's a perennial favorite of mine, and really highlights what this is about--"We're winning all the debates!"--oh, right, because it's debates that determine the validity of your claims, not science, experimentation, or rational thought.


Never mind that "winning" in these cases is generally typified by "God made it, neah, neah, neah, I'm not listening to anything else, neah, neah, neah,....." and other general such closed-minded childishness. I've never seen a creationist complaint about evolution that wasn't soundly addressed and refuted. From what I've seen the creationists take a "point" every time that science is complicated and they're to willfully ignorant to bother trying to understand the complexity.

Of course this just goes towards that "ignorance = good" that this conservative-bible represents.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Rakysh
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:39 pm UTC

Re: The New Conservative Jesus: He's kind of a dick now.

Postby Rakysh » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:36 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:Dear God, I'm afraid to think of what they say about OTHER religions (other than Islam, which it's a GIVEN they're going to tear apart). Buddhism for example, which doesn't exactly have a history of violence attached to it...

I'd just like to mention that Tibet up until about a hundred years ago had a buddhist government that tortured peasants widely. Nobody has a history of perfection.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, orthogon and 19 guests