Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Superchicken · Mar 2, 2003, 03:44 AM

haha wow I could be opening a can of worms with this post... hopefully people will be mature and acctually respond thoughtfully and respectfully. Because I'd genuinely like to know, recently I posted a graphic that had a bible quote in it and some people got really mad because supposidly my graphic was preaching at them. Anyway, but to be perfectly honest all it was was a quote from 1st Timothy 15 I think it is that has a lot of personal meaning (ie the reason I havn't attempted suicide again). But I'm just wondering the rational of why some people get so offended by even the mention of God or something, when generally if someone mentioned mohamad or budah or some other religious icon from another religion they'd be more respectful and get less reactive?

Mastrap · Mar 2, 2003, 03:47 AM

What was the quote?

OptimusG4 · Mar 2, 2003, 03:52 AM

It might not be the mentioning of the name, but perhaps the way some people try and tell you that God is in your life blah blah blah, basically pouring religion down your throat. To be honest, I could care less if someone is religious or not, it's not like I have to know one way or the other.

kmkkid · Mar 2, 2003, 03:57 AM

Offensive*

Chris

Superchicken · Mar 2, 2003, 04:00 AM

http://www.bible.org/netbible/1ti1.htm

1:15 if you really wanna read it I'm not gona post it cause I might offend people

OK the whole your aunt saying oh you got into a car accident that means God's working in your life, thing that's understandable to be annoyed with

chris_h · Mar 2, 2003, 04:13 AM

Because many parts of the bible are horrible.

I've read the bible from start to finish twice in my life... most christians will die without ever having done so. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Because "Jesus" had some great ideas, but I've never met anyone who follows his advice.

If you are a christian and you aren't intimately familiar with the bible, you are a hypocrite.

May I offer some light reading suggestions?:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

and more specifically:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/injustices.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/absurdities.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/intolerance.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/family.html

Edit:

also, you pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow based on what is convenient.

woman can be in church with their heads uncovered, but homosexuality is still wrong, though pork is fine because it tastes good... and so on and so on.

Adam Betts · Mar 2, 2003, 04:17 AM

I think SuperRoo[s]ter is making stuffs up. I don't think anyone here find God to be offensive. People are offended by how religious people tried hard to convert/preach them.

SuperRoo[s]ter, can you share some proofs that people here actually did find God to be offensive?

Mastrap · Mar 2, 2003, 04:23 AM

Could you have a look at your signature, SC?

"Belife" is spelled wrong. I'm not finding it offensive, just incredibly distracting.

Mac Zealot · Mar 2, 2003, 04:23 AM

I'm not offended by it at all.

I'm only offended that people that think all people who are catholic/christian/whatever are like this.

I'm not. I think whatever someone else wants to be is what they will be, and I'll be what I want to be, and everyone will be happy that way.

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 2, 2003, 04:25 AM

I don't think anyone here has ever said that they find God offensive, I don't. I find most Catholics offensive because they say that God hates this and that and if I do it I am going to hell. They should mind their own damn business.

Almost every other religion doesn't bother me, just Catholics. Go figure that the two most disliked religious people on this forum are superchicken and Zimphire.

So why did you try to commit suicide, eager to see God?

Mac Zealot · Mar 2, 2003, 04:27 AM

LOL

I DISLIKE people who do those things. They bug me. Point blank.

Adam Betts · Mar 2, 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
So why did you try to commit suicide, eager to see God?

Youo are goong to hell for sayni that.

__________________

Contrary To Popular Belife, I Am Not A Girl, Sorry Boys, You Havn't Found A Girl That's Interested In Your Hardware :(

fireside · Mar 2, 2003, 04:33 AM

someone give superchicken a freaking spell checker

Sealobo · Mar 2, 2003, 04:34 AM

His God is doing the spell checking for him.

Mac Zealot · Mar 2, 2003, 04:36 AM

then he must be going to hell stupid scripture v.8 208-282961

ARENA · Mar 2, 2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Youo are goong to hell for sayni that.

__________________

Contrary To Popular Belife, I Am Not A Girl, Sorry Boys, You Havn't Found A Girl That's Interested In Your Hardware

Oh no! Now Adam has been possessed by him!

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 2, 2003, 04:41 AM

I will clarify something chris_h noted...the eating of pork is an Old Testament law, which under Christianity is pre-empted by the New Testament's teachings.

(It is a fine point, but much like following the Ten Commandments will NOT get you into heaven. That's why a lamb had to be shed periodicly as a sacrifice in the Old Testament...the blood covered the "sins" committed in that time interval, since no one can perfectly follow the Commandments. Under the New Testament, the blood of Jesus Christ permanently replaces that of the slain lamb.)

Besides which, a lot of the "rules" given in the early Old Testament had as much to do with public safetly and sanity as anything else. It makes sense not to eat pork...after all, it was likely to be undercooked back then, and we all know how THAT would go.

Anyways, I do agree with what you say though. Too much "picking and choosing" of what's right and wrong in the Bible. Why not just throw it out, then? You don't believe half of it.

greg

driven · Mar 2, 2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
I don't think anyone here has ever said that they find God offensive, I don't. I find most Catholics offensive because they say that God hates this and that and if I do it I am going to hell. They should mind their own damn business.

Almost every other religion doesn't bother me, just Catholics. Go figure that the two most disliked religious people on this forum are superchicken and Zimphire.

So why did you try to commit suicide, eager to see God?

I'm Catholic and I've never said such things. (I guess I don't fall in your "most" group, heh?)

It's up to God to judge what he accepts or not, not me. I figure I barely have enough energy to make myself a better person much less preach to someone else. (Especially when I haven't quite got it right yet.) Any evangelism/proselytizing I do will have to be by the way that I act by example, not by what I say.

(I hope I improve your opinion of Catholics a bit ... )

Millennium · Mar 2, 2003, 04:43 AM

Ah, yes; someone has to bring up the SAB. Never mind that it's based on an awful translation, using an interpretation so literalist that it would make Betty Bowers cringe in horror, and she's supposed to be a spoof of fundamentalism.

The major problem with the Bible is that it can be twisted to say just about anything, and I say this as a Christian. This phenomenon is by no means unique to the Bible, or even religious texts in general; it's an inherent limitation of the written word. The SAB is as guilty of that as any fundamentalist sect.

The major problem with the SAB is that they don't recognize this in themselves. Neither do most fundamentalist sects, and this is what makes them so dangerous. Should the SAB be any different?

Mac Zealot · Mar 2, 2003, 04:45 AM

I dunno what to say, in fact, I hate to say it but even though I find myself solid with my beliefs in that I'm 1. catholic, 2. belive in god, and 3. believe there are reasons we are here....

I think that the bible, because it was written by humans, just like any other book, has it's fair share of lies, exagerations, etc.

What more can I say?

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 2, 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Youo are goong to hell for sayni that.

I'll add it to the list...

So why do I get the feeling that the second Zimph gets back from church he is going to reply after anyone posts anything.

"You are projecting" and "I never said that, you are making things up" crap.

chris_h · Mar 2, 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ah, yes; someone has to bring up the SAB. Never mind that it's based on an awful translation

You think that the King James Version of the bible is an awful translation?

I do too, but most christians still use it exclusively... besides, I think you'll find most of the problems remain, regardless of the translation.

About the pork thing: I've always heard that, but never seen any evidence for it. Wouldn't all meat be undercooked? Why did pork get the bad rap. In any case you're second guessing the bible... if the bible was worried about your health, it should have said so, especially since god would have known that the modern oven was a forthcoming invention.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 2, 2003, 05:08 AM

Besides which, a lot of the "rules" given in the early Old Testament had as much to do with public safetly and sanity as anything else. It makes sense not to eat pork...after all, it was likely to be undercooked back then, and we all know how THAT would go.

Well firstly, there often is no explanation as to why various commandments were given. Pigs could still be considered unclean regardless of how well they're cooked. It's not as though Leviticus 11:7 says "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you, except if you cook it properly, then go on and eat the other white meat."

Secondly, a lot of commandments really just don't make any sense at all. Why precisely would God care if you had cloth that had wool and linen together? Why must the straps of tefillin be black? What does God need with a starship? We never find these things out.

ThinkInsane · Mar 2, 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by chris_h:

Why did pork get the bad rap.

One word: Trichinosis

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 2, 2003, 05:19 AM

One sentence... why do we care about pork when we are talking about finding God "offencive"?

ThinkInsane · Mar 2, 2003, 05:21 AM

Someone asked a question, and it was answered. What's the big deal? Move on with the conversation.

Nicko · Mar 2, 2003, 05:27 AM

mmmmmmmmmm pork

zigzag · Mar 2, 2003, 05:41 AM

My 2 cents:

This is a relatively secular crowd, and everything gets analyzed to death, so I think you have to expect some resistance to religious doctrine. In fact, because so many people associate religion with negative childhood experiences and cultural conflicts, you can expect a fair amount of outright hostility. I don't think you'll ever be able to stop people from saying "I hate religion" or the like in a public forum if it reflects what they think, nor do I think they should be prevented from saying so. I think you just have to avoid taking it personally, because it's seldom intended personally. And you have an equal right to say "I think religion can be a positive thing" or even "I hate atheism." You'll get a heated argument, but you have the right to say it.

I think religion is a particularly touchy subject, because it's so personal. But it's also such an important public issue that I don't think you can avoid heated discussions about it.

I'm a lawyer. If I got upset every time someone expressed contempt for lawyers, I'd never sleep. I take it in stride and try not to take it personally. Indeed, I don't generally blame people for their hostility towards lawyers - it goes with the territory.

Anyway, just my 2 cents - it's probably worth what you paid for it.

philzilla · Mar 2, 2003, 08:22 AM

i don't find god offensive, i find having christianity rammed down my throat by "his followers" to be offensive though.

i'm a vegetarian, but you don't see me preaching about vegetarianism in my sig, in my posts, or anywhere else, for that matter. why? because i'm not stupid, that's why. the easiest way to put people off something, is to bang on about it, 24/7, because it's plain annoying.

for the record, i was brought up as a catholic, by very catholic parents, had to attend church on a sunday, went to a catholic school. i broke out of the brainwashing one day, and worked on a process called "thinking for myself" as my brothers and sister had done before me. funnily enough, at around the same time in life.

this should have been a poll. i'm sure the results would be quite interesting.

MPC · Mar 2, 2003, 08:35 AM

I grew up in Eugene Oregon. Downtown we have a lot of homeless kids that hang out there all day. Around six p.m. every day a group of Christians would hand out sandwiches and chips to the hungry. You want food? They forced you to listen to an hour of bible stuff to get it. In Portland we have the Church of Skatin. No ****, You go to church for an hour you can hit up the half pipe. They do make you wear a helmet. Odd, I thought god loved me.

edit: Oh, my point. Don't bribe me, it doesn't work. It only pisses me off.

boots · Mar 2, 2003, 08:42 AM

I think everyone knows where I stand.

Like I always say, "Love the sin, hate the sinner."

Oh, wait. sratch that, reverse it.

Oh, hell. Why do I bother.

I'm probably just projecting anyway...

vmarks · Mar 2, 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by philzilla:
i don't find god offensive, i find having christianity rammed down my throat by "his followers" to be offensive though.

i'm a vegetarian, but you don't see me preaching about vegetarianism in my sig, in my posts, or anywhere else, for that matter. why? because i'm not stupid, that's why. the easiest way to put people off something, is to bang on about it, 24/7, because it's plain annoying.

for the record, i was brought up as a catholic, by very catholic parents, had to attend church on a sunday, went to a catholic school.

Did you attend this cathedral?

willed · Mar 2, 2003, 09:41 AM

I wasquite a strong Catholic - like Phil I was brought up by Catholic parents and went to a Catholic school. With monks

However, I'm now studying theology at Oxford, and things have all become a lot less clear. Jesus was most likely a charismatic religious teacher who pissed off the wrong people. He didn't rise from the dead. I may still be a theist, though... I'll post back in three years when I've got my degree

One thing that I am now certain of though: most of you guys actually don't know what you're talking about, and in many cases it's the Christians who are just as if not more guilty of this.

About the pork thing - it's okay because Peter had a vision in which God said it was okay to eat anything that he had created. Acts 10:15 if you care.

Nicko · Mar 2, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by willed:

About the pork thing - it's okay because Peter had a vision in which God said it was okay to eat anything that he had created. Acts 10:15 if you care.

Does this mean cannibalism is ok? mmmmmmm soylent green

Mar 2, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ah, yes; someone has to bring up the SAB. Never mind that it's based on an awful translation, using an interpretation so literalist that it would make Betty Bowers cringe in horror, and she's supposed to be a spoof of fundamentalism.

The major problem with the Bible is that it can be twisted to say just about anything, and I say this as a Christian. This phenomenon is by no means unique to the Bible, or even religious texts in general; it's an inherent limitation of the written word. The SAB is as guilty of that as any fundamentalist sect.

The major problem with the SAB is that they don't recognize this in themselves. Neither do most fundamentalist sects, and this is what makes them so dangerous. Should the SAB be any different?

It bugs me when people tell me how I should live my life based on a literal interpretation of the bible. Each version of the bible we have today was rewritten over and over again with translation, accidental, and even intentional errors introduced each time. Some scriptures have lost all meaning, that it's not even worth considering as the truth.

philzilla · Mar 2, 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by vmarks:
Did you attend this cathedral?

no. there's a nice mexican restaurant, though, about two minutes walk from there. the guy who owns it taught me all i know about cooking mexican food. mmm...

actually, i can't even remember being inside that cathedral. the old people tell me i have been, many time, but all before i was, say, 9? there's another one at the end of the street, as i'm sure you're aware. i've been in that one loads, but for a non-religious occasion

scaught · Mar 2, 2003, 10:30 AM

finding and accepting religion into your life isnt going to happen until you actively seek it out.

hollering scripture and sin at people isnt going to change anyone. was anyone here actually effected by one of those people hollering about "youre going to hell?" (and not in a "why wont that guy shut up" way...)

if you truly believe your god is all knowing and all powerful and omniscient and omnipotent, you would probably shut your ****ing mouth and let him do the talking.

willed · Mar 2, 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by hayesk:

It bugs me when people tell me how I should live my life based on a literal interpretation of the bible. Each version of the bible we have today was rewritten over and over again with translation, accidental, and even intentional errors introduced each time. Some scriptures have lost all meaning, that it's not even worth considering as the truth.

Even the four gospels that many Christians consider to be 'above' the 'unreliable' Old Testament are in fact derived from many different sources, and their exact origins are still open to debate. I was quite surprised to find how fragmentary the documentary evidence is. You have to remember that they come from an age when the only form of transmission was by a guy sitting down and copying it out.

Our college has one of the earliest surviving fragments of Matthew's gospel ('P64'/the Magdalen Papyrus) from the 2nd century, and that's exactly what it is - a few fragments, containing a few partial lines.

philzilla · Mar 2, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by scaught:
if you truly believe your god is all knowing and all powerful and omniscient and omnipotent, you would probably shut your ****ing mouth and let him do the talking.

</lesson>

dang! the Rev. Scaught has laid the smack right down! A-MEN! i doubt that even Hank Rollins could have delivered that any better!

vmarks · Mar 2, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by philzilla:
no. there's a nice mexican restaurant, though, about two minutes walk from there. the guy who owns it taught me all i know about cooking mexican food. mmm...

actually, i can't even remember being inside that cathedral. the old people tell me i have been, many time, but all before i was, say, 9? there's another one at the end of the street, as i'm sure you're aware. i've been in that one loads, but for a non-religious occasion

Are you sure that that was a non-religious experience?

I know the one at the other end of the street- I went inside, walked through the cemetary, the walkway lined with former gravestones- I stayed in the dorms that are just to the right of the Cathedral.

Still waiting on that copy of the Echo from when George-zilla passed away.

chris v · Mar 2, 2003, 11:01 AM

To the original topic:

Superchicken, you can't handle the simplest typing chores, which makes you appear stupid. (the jpeg you posted had a typo in it)

I find it annoying to be preached at from a position of stupidity.

CV

Millennium · Mar 2, 2003, 11:08 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chris_h:
About the pork thing: I've always heard that, but never seen any evidence for it. Wouldn't all meat be undercooked? Why did pork get the bad rap.[quote]
Probably because pigs ate, and still eat, just about anything, to the point where their flesh was often contaminated with a lot of really nasty stuff. Not just bacteria either; there are some chemicals that no amount of cooking will get rid of.

Pork is pretty safe to eat today, but that has as much to do with the diet we typically give pigs as the techniques we use to cook the meat.

In any case you're second guessing the bible... if the bible was worried about your health, it should have said so, especially since god would have known that the modern oven was a forthcoming invention.

The problem is, how do you explain disease to someone who has no concept of microorganisms in general, much less germs?

Zimmerman · Mar 2, 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by chris v:
To the original topic:

Superchicken, you can't handle the simplest typing chores, which makes you appear stupid. (the jpeg you posted had a typo in it)

I find it annoying to be preached at from a position of stupidity.

CV

Heh. Sort of avoiding the argument, that. Just because he isn't careful about how he types doesn't invalidate his arguments. You must not be out of hs or your lack of logical clarity would have been beat out of you by your professors by now. Unless you go to a liberal university

(jk)

[/beating up on chris

]

That chastisement finished, about all the problems with the Bible. In a thread about the offensiveness of God, why are we discussing the Bible? (rehtorical) It's because the Bible is the largest compliation of the "Messages from God" to humans. And again, about the fact that the Bible is written by humans, it is usually assumed that it is full of the inevitable logical fallacies and contradictory messages etc etc etc. This is a point you'll find most fiercely contested by Christians. The Bible is a compilation of workes by something like 40 different people, written over a span of something like 2200 years. In-depth studes of the Bible tend to find it astonishingly resiliant, especially when you interpret the topics with a cultural context, a very appropriate way to translate ancient texts. The problems come when people remove a passage from context and abuse it to suit their own purposes. I actually suspect "Christians" or people proporting to be "religious" do this every bit as much as antagonists to the faith.

About the often strange and apparently inexplicable restrictions and prohibitions listed in the Old Testement: if studied in a cultural and technological context many of them actually make a good deal of sense, especially concerning the consumption of "unclean animals" where the emphasis is not only on "not eating because God said so," but because there is a genuine health risk at issue. As for many of the others, you probably don't care enough to read an explanation which would require some lenth and concentration.

Zimmerman · Mar 2, 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
The problem is, how do you explain disease to someone who has no concept of microorganisms in general, much less germs?

Good point. Even the ancient Greeks didn't have a concept for microbes; they believed the fundamental particles of the universe were fire, water, earth, wind, and pathos for goodnessakes. When was it that microbes were identified? 1700's?

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 2, 2003, 02:41 PM

Same thing for circumcision. The Jews had to be circumcised...which, of course, has been proven to be a health benefit when you consider the conditions they lived in at the time.

Yes, as someone pointed out, undercooked pork is "special" because of trichinosis. I thought everyone knew that. You can eat steak rare, but don't try that with pork you fools!

Hmmmm...what else? Oh yes. People seem to yammer on about how the Bible is wildly innaccurate and rife with errors of all sorts. That's bulsh!t. In actual fact, the literal translation of the original text(s) is less hotly contested than Shakespeare's writings! (You don't see anyone whining about how innaccurate your Shakespeare text is every time someone brings him up, do you?

) Cross-sectional study of the Bible reveals a remarkable (almost superhuman) accuracy for such a volumous body of work, as was been pointed out by someone earlier.

It's the translations (or interpretation thereof) that may have lost something along the way, but comparing multiple translations of the same text often helps give a better understanding of the particular concept.

*throws loose change*

greg

chris v · Mar 2, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Zimmerman:
Heh. Sort of avoiding the argument, that. Just because he isn't careful about how he types doesn't invalidate his arguments. You must not be out of hs or your lack of logical clarity would have been beat out of you by your professors by now. Unless you go to a liberal university (jk)

[/beating up on chris ]

No, it's to the point. He asked why we were offended by his posting of a jpeg with some proselytizing in it. I wan't offended, I was irritated. If you're going to proselytize, you should try to not look like an idiot doing it was my point.

CV

Saetre · 03:48 PM

I don't find god offensive. Preachy religious types are just sorta funny and sad. They remind me of this retarded kid in highschool who would always hit on our teacher. You know what I mean, superfowl? [/mean because i hate being preached at by poultry]

Oh, and I'm surprised people consider catholics to be the preachy types. It seems like most of that catholics I know only go to church for the social aspects. On campus, the real nuts are all some wierd evangelical protestant ****. Maybe it's because there are more catholics, which makes it more likely to be preached at by one than any other religious association.

shanraghan · Mar 2, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
My 2 cents:

This is a relatively secular crowd, and everything gets analyzed to death, so I think you have to expect some resistance to religious doctrine. In fact, because so many people associate religion with negative childhood experiences and cultural conflicts, you can expect a fair amount of outright hostility. I don't think you'll ever be able to stop people from saying "I hate religion" or the like in a public forum if it reflects what they think, nor do I think they should be prevented from saying so. I think you just have to avoid taking it personally, because it's seldom intended personally. And you have an equal right to say "I think religion can be a positive thing" or even "I hate atheism." You'll get a heated argument, but you have the right to say it.

I think religion is a particularly touchy subject, because it's so personal. But it's also such an important public issue that I don't think you can avoid heated discussions about it.

I'm a lawyer. If I got upset every time someone expressed contempt for lawyers, I'd never sleep. I take it in stride and try not to take it personally. Indeed, I don't generally blame people for their hostility towards lawyers - it goes with the territory.

Anyway, just my 2 cents - it's probably worth what you paid for it.

I'd have to agree with this, pretty much. One of the things that often gets me angry at religion is the fact my mother used to (and still sometimes does) preach to me at length to become a fundamentalist Messianic Jew, accept the idea I'm a pawn of angels and demons and so forth. You know how pleasant that is? Not at all. I don't see why I should have to listen to others preach about their beliefs and why they're so right and we're going to hell if we don't listen, but oh no ours aren't considered one whit, or even respected... you get the idea.

titanX · Mar 2, 2003, 05:39 PM

Yes, as someone pointed out, undercooked pork is "special" because of trichinosis. I thought everyone knew that. You can eat steak rare, but don't try that with pork you fools!

It is also known that pork is the meat that resembles most human flesh (taste-like). It makes then sense that pork was banned at a time where you couldn't be sure the pork you ate wasn't in fact human meat...

I Bent My Wookiee · Mar 2, 2003, 05:43 PM

I dated a Gay Christian, talk about an oxymoron.